The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-04-02
THE RIGHT TO. STRIKE
UNION MEN CAN DECLINE TO WORK WITH NoN-UNroNIsTS.
Decision of the Supreme cour. of the State of New York on . Cues ton of Rights of
 Laborers.

Albany, N. Y.. April 1.-The question of whether members of labor union have the right /tot decline to work with non- union men and to order d strike to have such right respected was determined iri the affirmative by the Court of Appeals today in decision handed down in the case of the National Protective Associa- ton of Steam Filters and Helpers and Charles MeQueed. appellant, against James Al. Cummin and Patrick J. Duf as the Treasurer of the Enterprise Asso- citation, implicated with others. Erhe court is divided in its decision. the prevailing opinion being written by Chef ,Justce Par ker and concurred in by Judges Gray, O Brien and Caight. It is dissented iron, by Judges Bartlett. Martin and yann.
 In his opinion Judge Parker holds: Tt is not the duty of one man to work for another unless he has agreed to; and if he has so agreed to, but for no fixed period, either may end contract when h. chooses The one may work or refuse to work at will and the other may hire or discharge at will. Working men have the right to organize for the purpose of securing higher wages shorter hours of labor or improving their relations with their employers. They have the right to strike provided the order is not to gratify Apahtt UT tilJdft Ou OlncTS, bul to secure better terms of employment for themselves. A peaceful and orderly strike Is not in violation of the law.
 "A body of men who have organized for purposes deemed beneficial to them selves have the right when they feel 1t is detrimental to the interst of thir or ganization .ta refuse to work.
 If the conduct of the members of an become Illegal because the organization directs one of its members to state the reason for it's conduct. Whenever the courts can see that the refusal Of mem bers of an organization to work with non-members may be in the interests of the several members it will not assume in the absence of a finding to the con trary that the object of such refusal was solely to gratifv malice and to in- nict injury upon such non-members.
 One of the objections sometimes urged against labor organizations is that un- skilled workmen receive as large con- pensation as those thoroughly competent. The examination as to aualihcat tions re- tends to do away with the force of that objection as to them.
 T am unable to see how 1t is possible to deny the right of the defendant organ ization and their members to refuse to work with non-members when in the event of injury by the carelessness or such employees the, burden would have to be horne by the injured without com pensation from the employer and with no financial responsibility on the part or those causing the injury.
 50 long as workmen must assume all the risk of injury that may come to them through the carelessness of co-empioyes they have the moral and legal right to say that they will not work with certain men and the employer must take their dictation or go without their services.
 The defendant association. as appears from the findings, wanted to put tneir men in the place of certain men at work who were non members working for smaller pay and they set about doing 1t in a perfectly lawful manner. They de- termned that if 1t were necessary they would hear the burden and expense of a strike to accomplish that result and in so determining they were clearly within their rights.
 "A labor orga anization is endowed with precisely the same legal right as is an individual to threaten to do that which 1t