Evening star., 1900-10-04
THE RIGHTS OF LABOR
Effect Of Recent Decision by a New
York Court.
THE VIEWS OF MR.. SAMUEL GOMPERS
Strikes and Boycotts and Other
Matters Passed Upon.
PROTECTION AND SELF-HELF

Mr.. Samuel Gompers, president of the
American Federation of Labor, has return
ed from a trip to the west, and in a talk
with Star reporter yesterday expressed
himself much pleased at the outlook for
continued prosperity among the working
people generally throughout the country.
Mr. Gompers was especially elated over
what he termed a judicial vindication of
labor's claims by New York court, and
remarked that it was the most enlightened
as well as far-reaching decision ever rem
dered E the United States by a high court
in labor case. 1t was complete yindi-
cation, he said, of the position of organized
labor. In his Judgment it swept aside all
antiquated notions and invoked modern ma
tional progressive principles.
Briefly, what" asked Mr.. Gompers,
docs organized labor claim? This:
Il. The right to organize local, central
and national unions and federate all
''2. The right to strike as a means of en-
forcing recognition for unions and the prin-
ciple of collective bargaining
%. The right to refuse to work with nom
union men.
II. The right to picket establishments in
volved in a strike, and to employ moral
suasion to prevent men from taking strlk-
erS places.
- The right to boycott individually and
collectively, obnoxious employers and other
adversares of labor and to induce all
friends of unionism to join in such boy
colt.
Each Claim Upheld.
astonishing 1t may seem, the decision
referred to emphatcally upholds each of
these claims. 1t was rendered recently by
the appellate division of the New York su-
preme court, body of five judges, and 1t
was unanimous There is therefore strong
reason for hoping that the court Of appeals,
the highest tribunal in the state, will affirm
and indorse the Judgment. The labor ques-
ton on its legal side, would then be set
tied in New York and settled right. Ihat
other states would gradually adopt the
same reasonable and just policy there can
be no doubt. The logic of the New YORK
decision is Irresistible.
The question presented to the court was
this: Has an association of workinsmen'
organized for self-protection and seif-help,
the right to obtain the discharge OF one
man or any number of men, by threats, IN
tmidation, strikes or otherwise? In other
words is 1t lawful for union 10 go TO an
employer and warn him Of the consequences
II he engages certain men, or retains men
already in his employ. to the detriment of
other men in his employ? OVerruiing an
inferior tribunal, the appellate division OF
the supreme court has answered TINS vital
question in the affirmative. Two opinions
were written one by Justice Mclaughlin,
the other by Justice Ingraham. distin-
guished and experienced jurists both.
Justice Mclaughlin reasons as follows:
1t cannot be seriously doubted that every
workman has the right in the first in
stance, to say for whom and with whom
he will work. and an employer OF course,
has the correlative right of saying whom he
will employ or prefer among two or more
rivals. Once this reciprocal right is de-
stroyed, liberty is destroyed, giving place to
industrial despotism. Now, II one mas the
In i= fp1f nal
capacity he does not lose II when acting
with others. clothed with an equal right.
Consequently, labcrers may combine and
say they will not work for employers who
engage any but members OF labor or
ganizations, and employers may combine
and say that they will not employ persons
who are (or who are not, as the case may
be- members Of such organizations. 1t is
true that as a result of a combination of
laborers certain men may lose employment,
but that is an incident Of industrial liberty
and competition.
When Combination is Illegal.
The fact that organizations cause in
Jury TO certain persons does not make their
purposes or action illegal. In he words of
the supplementary opinion Of Justice In
graham, 1t is the illegality of the purposes
TO be accomplished, Of the means used
TO accomplish that purpose, that makes a
combination Illegal" The purposes of
trade unions are admittedly lawful and
such methods as strikes and threats or
striking are not in themselves unlawful,
since every man has the right to quit work
for any reason and at any time, ana this
right is not lost when he enters into COM
binaton to exercise il. Hence, 1t is not un-
lawful for a union to demand and procure
exclusive employment or the discharge Of
obnoxious workmen, by threats of striking
or actual striking.
THE principle that whatever is lawful
when done by one person is lawful when
4 1.,ya nytahi inut inn nf IL
most automatic, yet it has been tacitly and
openly denied in nearly every labor case
previous to that under discussion. That
was due to the persistence of old common
law notions of 'conspiracy'-notions inap-
plicable to modern conditions. In this age
of cooperation and consolidation 1t is fu-
tile and absurd to employ obsolete tests.
The advanced position taken by the New
York court works deliberate, intelligent
recognition of the doctrine of personal lib
erty-equal rtghts-in the sphere of the re-
lations between laborers and capitalists.
Boycott Justified.
"A little reflection will show that the
boycott is entirely justified in the light OF
the same guiding principles. There is no
question that one man may, for any reason,
withdraw his patronage from any person or
any number of persons He does not lose
this right on joining organization; hence
any association of men may collectively or
der and maintain boycott. Indeed, exam
Inc any or the above enumerated claims oi
organized labor and 1t is plainly seen TO be
valid and proper, If the New York judg-
ment be accepted as well founded.
''Of course. all that labor demands for 1t
self 1t is willing to grant in equal measure
to others. 1t does not oppose combination
among employers. 1t does not depend on
legislation. 1t asks no special privileges,
no favors from the state. 1t wants to be
let alone and to be allowed to exercise It's
rights and use its great economic power.
Workmen must rely on their own strength, the
strength resulting from mutualism and or
ganizaton. They must make 1t economic
ally impossible for the employers to antag-
onize unions. They must be too powerful,
too fit, to be successfully fought and op-
pressed. In fine, organized labor must de-
pend on its worth and superiority for con-
tinued progress.
Under equality of rights and liberty the
trade-union movement Is bound to survive
and triumph. and We therefore welcome the
New York decision, the NEST comprehensive
of its kind, because 1t emphasizes the thor
ough legitimacy of the labor movement in