The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-07-28
WELLER ACT AGAIN
DECLARED ILLEGAL
SUPERIOR COURT sUsTAINs
JUDGE GUNsTER,s FINDING.
Because It Attempts to Regulate
Trade and Discriminates Against
Corporations, It Is Held to offend
Against the Constitution-The Act
Provided a Penalty on Corpora
tions for Discharging Employees
for Affiliation with a Labor Organ
ization.
ization.


Weller act, passed by the Pennsylva-
MIA legislature in 1897, making it
misdemeanor for a corporation to dis
charge an employe because of his af-
filiation with a labor organization, Is
declared unconstitutional by the SUI
perior court, in an opinion handed
down by Judge Rice, at midsummer
session of the court at Philadelphia,
Thursday.
The act was brought to a test In
the case of the Commonwealth against
George Clark, quarter sessions, Dacka-
wanna county. Clark as foreman, 1t
is alleged, discharged two men for
having Joined labor union He was
indicted under the Weller act, and the
case called for trial one year ago las.
spring.
Attorneys John +. Scrdgg ana
Charles l.. Daniels, representing the
defendant, moved to qUasn tie in
dictment on the ground that the act
under which it was framed was un'
constitutional. A rule to quaSh the In
| dictment was granted and after argu-
ments were regularly heard, Judge
Gunster sustained the motion to
quash, ruling that as the act referred
| only to corporations and did not affect
firms, individuals or limited partner
ships, 1t was special legislation and
| therefore unconstitutional.
COMBINED APPEAL.
The labor organizations throughout
| the state, which at the time through
their legislative committee at Harris
burg were interested in contemplated
| prosecutions under the same act by
forty discharged employees of the
Reading railroad, combined to appeal
the case, and engaged Attorney Nc
| Cullen, OF Philadelphia, to take charge
of it.
The case was heard at the January
session of the Superior court in this
city. The defense was not represented
by counsel, the Gunster opinion beinS
relied upon solely. Mr.. McCullen' s
contention against Judge Gunster's
finding was that the act was no more
than a proper exercise of the police
power of the state, and, as to its be-
ing special legislation, that it could not
be made to affect firms, individuals
and limited partnerships, because they
are not creatures of the common
wealth like cha tered companies.
The Superior court not only finds
the Gunster ruling to be good law, bu,
| goes farther and declares that the act
| is unconstitutional, because it is an
attempt to regulate trade, mining or
manufacturing, as the case may be-
which is explicitly prohibited by the
constitution. On this point, Judge
| Rice says:
The principle involved in such legis
lation Is very far reaching, as 1t would
extend to the membership of an en-
plOye in any lawful organization, OIL
the employment of men belonging tC
such societies, or would make it a
misdemeanor for an employe to coerce
an employer, because he refused t
employ men not to his liking.
COERCION OF EMPLOYEES.
"The things condemned are coer.
cion and the attempted coercion of ar
employe; but as the statute declare:
what acts shall constitute coercion oi
attempted coercion, it is plain to bt
seen that it forbids, under penalty, the
discharge of an employe because Of
his connection with any labor organ
ization.
ut would seem clear that a Law
which provides that one employed tC
labor shall not be discharged by hi
employer for cause which they deem
ed and agreed to be sufficient wher
the contract of employment was made
or that he shall not be discharged TO
the same cause, when, by the terms o
the contract of employment, the EN-
ployer has a right to discharge him
| nd hn hnC iohf 70 omit n,.ly n
his mere pleasure, or that a labore
shall not quit work because his EN-
ployer has formed or Joined an asso
citation of employers lawfully organ
lied for their mutual benefit or pro
lection, is a law regulating labor.
And such law. when operative t
restrict the natural rights of those en-
gagged in trade, mining or manufac
turing, with respect to the conduc
of such business, including, of course
the selection and discharge of EN-
ployes may also be regarded as
law regulating trade, mining or manu-
featuring, as the case may be-"
Dealing with the question of clas
legislation, the judge goes on to say
"Is this a special law? The only EN-
ployers affected by the act are cor
poratiors. 1t is unquestionably clas
legislation, but class legislation is no
necessarily special legislation, "'thil
the meaning of the prohibitory pro
visions of our state constitution.
A CLASS MEASURE.
"As its title indicates, It is an &C
to protect certain employees, or to b
more explicit, it extends protection I