The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1894-07-19

CAdG 4AO1Ctou O0OS 1AO LILO
Abettors---The Opinion Ana
lyzed and Commented Upon by
the Richmond Times.
lRichmond Times
In his charge to the grand jury that
indicted Debs and his abettors, United
States Judge Grosscup laid down the
following law:
recognize, however, the right of labor
to organize. Each man in America is
a free man, and so long as he does not
interfere with the rights of others, he has
the right to do with that which is his
what he pleases. In the highest sense Il
mans arm is his own, and aside from
contract relations, no one but himself
can direct when it shall be raised to work
or dropped to rest. The individual op.
ton to work or to quit is the imperish.
able right OF a free man. But the raising
or dropping of the arm is a result of the
will that resides in the brain, and much
as we may desire that such wills should
remain entirely independent there is no
mandate OF law which prevents their as.
sOciatiOn with others and response to a
higher will. The individual may feel
himself alone unable to cope with the
conditions that confront him, or unable
to comprehend the myriad of consdera-
tiOns that ought to control his conduct
He is entitled to the highest wage
that strategy of work or cessation OF
work may bring, and thelimtation upon
his intelligence and opportunities may
be such that he does not choose to stand
upon his own perception of strategic or
other conditions. His right to choose a
leader, one who observes, thinks, and
wills for him-a brain skilled to observe
his interests-is no greater pretentiOn
than that which is recognized in every
other department of industry. So far,
and within reasonable limits, assoca-
tiOns OF this character are not only not
unlawful, but are, in my judgment, bene-
ticial, when they do not restrain individ-
ual liberty and are under enlightened and
conscientious leadership.
But they are subject to the same laws
as other associations. The leaders to
whom are given the vast power OF judg-
ing and acting for members are simply,
in that respect their trustees; their con-
duct must be judged like that of other
trustees, by the extent of their lawful
authority and the good faith with which
they have executed it. No man in his
invidual right can lawfully demand and
insist upon conduct by others which will
lead to an injury to a third person s
lawful rights. The railroads carrying
the mails and Interstate commerce have
a right to the service of each of its en-
ployes until each lawfully chooses to
quit, and any concerted action upon the
part of others to demand or insist, un-
der any effective p ,nalty or threat, upon
their quitting, to The injury of the mail
service or the prompt transportation Of
interstate commerce, is conspiracy, un-
less such demand or insistence is pur-
suant OF a lawful authority conferred
upon them by the men themselves, and
is made in good faith in the execution
OF such authority. The demand and in
sistence, under effective penalty or threat
and injury to the transportation Of the
mails or Interstate commerce being
proven, the burden falls upon those max
ing the demand or insistence to show
lawful authority and good faith in its
execution.
We entirely concur in all Judge
Grosscup said until he reached near
the end Of the paragraph, to the point
where he uses the language, "unless
such demand or insistance is pursuant
of lawful authority" etc. What we
shall say on further extract from the
charge will illustrate our objection to
the passage beginning with those
words.
The judge then adds the following
Let me illustrate: Twelve carpenters
are engaged in building a house. Aside
from contract regulations, they each can
quit at pleasure. A thirteenth and four
teenth man, strangers to them, by con
certed threats of holding them up to
public odium or private malice, induce
them to quit and leave the house un-
finished. The latter in no sense represent
the former or their wishes, but are sim
ply interlopers for mischief, and are
guilty of conspiracy against the employer
of the carpenters.
He is right in this also. But he
then goes on to add the following:
But, if upon trial for such results
they prove that instead OF being stran.
gers, they are the trustees, agents, OF
leaders of the twelve, with full power to
determine for them whether their wage
is such that they ought to continue OF
quit, and that they have in good faith
determined that question, they are not,
then, so far as the law goes, coHspira-
tors.
But if it should further appear that
the supposed authority was used, not in
the interest OF the twelve, but to further
a personal ambition or malice of the
two, it would no longer justify their con
duct. Doing thing under cloak of au-
thority is not doing it with authority.
The injury of the two to the employer
in such an instance would be only aggra-
waited by their treachery to the associ-
ated twelve, both employer and employees
should with equal insistence ask for the
visitation OF the law.
We entirely agree with Judge Gross
cup in the second Of these two para
graphs last quoted. The second case
he puts is one in which authority is
abused for corrupt purpose. Blu,
what we want to remark on is the first
of the two paragraphs last quoted.
We take issue with Judge GrosscuE
when he says that the action of the
trustees of labor unions-the walking
delegates, in efect-who have beer
given authority by its members to de
/ termiEe tor them whether their wag,
is such that they ought to continue o.
quit is necessarily an innocent &C
even if they have acted in good iaitl
towards those whom they represent
We insist that their action may be
breach of law and common right, evel
though they did what they believed
was for the bes, interests Of those be
hind them.
There has been vast amount c
controversy on what ough, to be tn
law governing agreements Of this char
L. acter. But those controversies ar
now considered as put at rest by
final decision made by all the Judge