The age-herald., 1902-04-02
Have Right to Strike Whenever
 Deemed Desirable
ACT PURELY AS INDIVIDUALS
Supreme Court of New York Says Union Men Have the Right to Refuse to Work With
 Non-Union Men.

Albany N. Y, April 1.-"The question of whether or not members of a labor un- ion have the right to decline to work with non union men and to order strike to have such right respected, was de- termined in the affirmative by the Court of Appeals today in the decision n funded down in the case of the National Protec- tive Association of Filters and Helpers and Charles McQuoad appellant, against James H. Cummings and Patrick Duff, as treasurer of the Enterprise Associa- tion, implicated with others
 The court is divided in its decision. the prevailing opinion being written by Chief Parker and concurred in by Judges Gray, O'Brien and Gaigth. It Is dissented from by Judges Bartlett, Martin and Vann. In his opinion Judge Parker holds:
 "It is not the duty of one man to work for another unless he has agreed to, and if he so agrees. for no fixed period. either may end a contract when he 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 or ganize for the purpose of securing higher wages, sharter hours of labor or inn proving their relations with their employ CTS. They have the right to strike pro- vided the order is not to gratify malice or infiict injury, but to secure better terms by employment for themselves A peace full and orderly strike is not in violation of the law
 Have Right to Refuse.
 "A body of men who have organized selves have the right, when they feel il is detrimental to the interests of their or ganizat ation, to refuse to work.
 If the conduct of the members of an organization is legal in itself, it does not become illegal because the organization directs one of it's members to state che reason for it's conduct. Whenever the courts can see that a 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 gratify malice and to in- fict injury upon such non-members.
 One of the objections sometimes urged against labor organizations is to the un- skilled workmen who receive as large a compensation as those thoroughly com petent The examination as to qualifi- cations required by defendants as exists tends to do away with the force of ob- jection as to that.
 As to Non-Union Men.
 T am unable to see how it is possible to deny the right of the defendant organi- ration and their members to refuse to work with non-members when in the event of injury by the carelessness Of such co-employes the burden would have to be borne by the injured without com pensaton from the employer and no man. cial responsibility on the part of 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-employes 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 .ieir men in the place of certain men at work who were non-members working for smaller pay and they set about doing il in a perfectly lawful manner They de termined that If 1t were necessary they would bear the burden and expense of 8 strike for that purpose.
 "A labor organization Is endowed with precisely the same legal right as is an in dividuai to threaten to do what it may carry out lawfully"