New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-11-15
INDUSTRIAL COMBINATIONS.

The d,ss ,ntjng opinion rendered in the United
States Court Of Appeals al st. Louis IN the
Kansas City boycottlng case Is only less inter
esting than the majority decision of the Court
though for far different reason. 1t affords
an example Of the ineptness OF special plead
ING IN utteranceo from the Bench, and OF the
liability Of such pleading TO be answered with
the "tu Quoque" argument, which. II not con-
elusive, Is generally dlscomfiting. 1t IS not
necessary 10 raise the question or The appro-
priateness of denunciatlon, verging closely upon
invective, In q judicial opinion. The obvious
and commanding point is that in so far as the
denunciations are well founded they are Just
as applicable TO combinations OF labor as TO
those Of capital, and that in so far as they
are unfounded, and that IS TO not little e1-
tent they are as unjust 10 capital as they
would be f applied 10 labor. II will be an IN
teresting study in Industrial ethics 10 read over
some passages Of the opinion, and, In so doing
10 substitute labor and "employes" for "capi
taI' and employers" The business Of 1t may
not be thus enhanced, but IL viii scarcely be
impaired.
"All capital" Gays the Judge. seeks 10 IN
s'crease it's power by combination and 10 that
"end assumes the form Of corporations and
"trusts. Many Of these are on gigantic
"scale" 1t may well be questioned II all or
nearly all capital does so. The bulk or the
capital OF this country Is probably not In CON-
binntions bur entirely outside Of corporations
and trusts To whatever extent the state
ment is true Of capital, however, 1t Is also
true of labor which for years has been COM
bining into trusts on gigantic scale Indeed
labor began such combination before capital
did. And It is as true Of the labor unions as
Il Is Of the combinations OF capital that they
are formed, as Judge Caldwell says, SOLELY
for pecuniary profit The statement would
probably be more judlclous, If not judicial, II
the "solely" were omitted, or made to read
"chiefy." But let that pass. 1t would not be
easy 10 mention any important combination
Of workingmen that did not have for It's OBJ
tect the pecuniary profit OF Its members.
Speaking Of corporations. the Judge says that
what the stockholders want is more divi-
dends." Undoubtedly. And what the members
of the labor union want is more wages In
both cases the desire IS not only legitimate but
commendable. The workingman who has no
ambition to Increase his earnings is probably
not worth what he already gets, and the capt.
tallst who would not like to get larger returns
from his investments IS probably on the near
road to bankruptcy.
The essential thing Is that these desires shall
seek fulilment by legitimate means and with
due regard to the rights Of others. 1t certainly
seems extreme to say, a. in the opinion quoted
that capitalists defy all social restraints that
"would have O tendency to lessen their divi
blends" Capitalists not altogether out
laws. Nor are combinations Of labor free
from the reproach Of sometimes defying social
restraints that would have tendency to lessen
90 air ,1apo = Mid ho
5ust to them as It is to capitalists, to say they
defy oil social restraints. Nor does it appear
quite jud!cious to say that the "ony Lawful
limitation" upon the Use Of strikes and boy
cotts-and, Of course, equally Of lockouts-ii
that 1t shall be exercised in peaceable and or
derly manner. 1t is entirely possible to con
duct criminal conspiracy in peaceable ant
orderly manner, but the fact that 1t involve.