New-York tribune., 1902-06-27
AN IMPORTANT LABOR DECISION.

The comprehensive decision on the rlSh'S VI
employers and employees just handed down py
the Supreme Court of Wisconsin VIII be studied
with interest in other States. The Judiciary
of Wisconsin enjoys high reputation, ana 'iie
nosition there taken will naturally and prop
erlv have influence with the courts which else
where are struggling with similar problems.
The Wisconsin decision declares that State
law which prohibits any employer from dis
charging anybody because he belongs TO labor
organization is contrary to the employers con-
stitutional rights and therefore void AS New
York has on its statute book Section III OF
the Penal Code a similar law, which makes 1t
2 misdemeanor, punishable by not more than
six months Imprisonment and 5000 fine. to
compel any person TO agree not to join a labor
organization as a condition of securing or con-
tinuing in employment. the question OF its con-
stitutfonality is Immediately suggested
The Wisconsin court recognizes the right OF
workmen to combine in labor organization.
The refusal TO labor cannot be made crime.
no matter what reason may prompt the re-
fusal. The reasons which may influence Il man
freely TO contract refuse TO contract his labor
must not be inquired into. He may join any
lawful organization when he deems ii to his ad-
vantage and may likewise refrain from joining
such an organization. In other words the
IL Vi oNii i'to'i, anu i''S
sell it to whom and under what conditions he
pleases. Every labor unionist will commend
this doctrine at least so far as it legalizes or
ganiZation though perhaps those who have In
this city been seeking to give to the union
Ia aborer "A legal preference over the nonunion
iaborer will not be prepared to accept 1t as
whole Almost certainly they will object to
the application of the same doctrine 10 secure
similar freedom for the employer The court
does this with most convincing logic. 1t points
out that if an employers liberty to say whom
he will hire and under what conditions he will
hire him he curtailed by legislation, this funda-
mental liberty of the laborer can likewise be
curtailed. and he may be compelled to work
against his VIII for persons or under conditions
unsatisfactory to him, If an employer can he
made criminal for refusing TO employ union
labor. the union emplOye can be made Grim
inal for leaving work in obedience to his
union. The right to employ or be employed is
equal and neither is subject to legislative re-
strIction. Therefore the law fOrbidding an en-
ployer TO follow his own will in the choice OF
workmen. and employ union or n0n-union men
at his pleasure, is set aside violating primary
rights.
This decision is based the fundamental
rule that all men are equal before the law. The
plain that it seems as if there could never have
been any question about the futility of passing
such laws as this, which interfered with the
freedom of an employers will, while carefully
guarding the corresponding freedom of the en-
ploye to exact any terms he would for his labor
Such confusion of thought has been current
this matter however, and sentimentalists and
politicians looking for the labor vote have been
so active. that the statute books of almost all
the States loaded with legislation which
will not bear the test of constitutionality. Sev
eral such laws have been set aside in New FORK
in the last few years. among them measures
forbidding the use for public work OF stone
from other States and prescribing the rate of
wages which contractors for public work must
pay their employees The section of the Penal
Code making II q misdemeanor TO dismiss en-
ployes for membership in a labor union. or
TO make -unonsm a condition of employ
ment, appears never to have been passed upon
by the Court of Appeals. When its validity is
submitted to the judgment Of that tribunal 1t