The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1893-03-29
IN RE JUDGE E. c. BILLINGS VS.. GEN
ERAL LABOR STRIKES AFFECTING
COMMERCE.

To the Editor of the Eagle.
In EAGLE of yesterday, the Associated
Press dispatches gave an account of an
opinion of Judge E. c. Billings and of
several interviews with leading thinkers
in the United States, concerni ng strikes.
The courts decision. if correctly report
ed was to the effect
''That general strikes are illegal if in
any way they restrain Gmpede) the free
dom of commerce"
This may be the law now in that par
ticular judges latest territorial Jurisdlc-
ton but it is not the law of this country.
Such law as this breeds strikes, dissen-
sions and ends in deep-sea ted bitterness
in the hearts of wage earners to corpor-
ations and employees generally.
Commerce is simply trade. Trade is
but vocation. Labor is trade and is a
vocation, not so genteel perhaps, but as
necessary as commerce. Trade, j. e.,
labor, can exist without much COM
merce, but commerce without labor
cannot exist. Commerce is the long
train of loaded freight cars, the huge
steamers that ply over the ocean; but
ldUOI ID ttlo mighty euShhO th@o AAo'OS
them. If it is illegal for labor to impede
commerce it is illegal for commerce. to
cripple and stifie labor. The one ele-
ment that makes either illegal is left out
of the opinion of Judge E. c. Billings
i. e.: force. The employment, by either
of force to accomplish the end, may or
may not be illegal according to the facts
of each case.
The general principle hereinafter laid
down is the law of this country and will
yet find its way into statutes and
supreme courts, viz:
"No act of many persons can be
illegal unless the same act would be
illegal if committed by one person. A
combination of persons to do an act IS
not illegal unless the act proposed will
be illegal if performed by one.''
That there may arise some condition
of things that will eventuate law de-
fining the limitations of strikes and
holding them closer than one individual
in his conduct as an employe, time will
prove; but the right to quit work by one
mantle right to strike by many-is.
as Seward said, higher than law and
constitutions. The right of freedom,
liberty, under the law to control your
own actions, if in SO doing you violate
no legal right of another, is fundamental.
The legislative recognition of the right
of strikes, general or limited, under
limitations and safeguards as to the
rights of persons and property, is the
sentiment, the public opinion, of this
country, and will yet be statute law: the
rights of the god of commerce to the
contrary Notwithstanding. Life, liberty
and property are constitutionally guar
anteed, but the right to force men to
move and handle property of others,
is akin to the old law that required an
idle or poor laborer to work for another,
at request, under penalty of imprison-
ment for refusing to labor. To prevent
the owner of articles of commerce from
moving them is illegal, but if he is left
free to move them himself, he has no
legal complaint. If no force or threats
are employed there is no legal wrong.
The rights of the wage Garner and en-
ployers trust be recognized rs RECIPROCAL.
If YOU force "A" to work for 81. on de-
mand. you must force b to EMPLOY
"A" on request. The local standing of
employer and employee in law must be
recognized as absolutely equal, leaving
each free TO act, but each amsnelable to
law for acts which invade the legal
rights OF the others. Mere violation OF
moral and society obligations are not
the foundation of legal rights-these are
corrected by education and public senti-
ment, not by law.
Commerce, though SO immense as TO
be beyond eompre hension. can have no
rights in the employment or dismissal of
iaborers that are not extended 10 the
private citizen who hires one man.
STUDENT.
aG.-.l oc.b .cGo