The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-04-02
Members of Trades Unions Upheld in
Refusing to work with Men
Not Affiliated with Them.
PEACEFUL STRIKES LAWFUL
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS HAVE SAME
RIGHTS AS INDIVIDUALS.
May Threaten to Do That which
They May Lawfully Do-Many
April Day Strikes.

ALBANY, n. Y. April 1.-The question
of whether or not members of a labor
union have the right to decline to work with
nonunion men and to order a strike 10 have
such rights respected was determined in
the affirmative by the Court of Appeals to-
day in a decision handed down in the case
Of the National Protective Association of
Steam Filters and Helpers and Charles
McQueed, appellant. against James NJ.
Cummin and Patrick j. Duff, as treasurer
Of the Enterprise Association, implicated
with others.
The court is divided in it's decision, the
prevailing opinion being written by Chief
Fudge Parker and concurred in by Judges
Gray. O'Brien and Caight. 1t is dissented
from by Judges Harelett, Martin and Vann.
In his opinion Judge Parker holds:
1T is not the duty OF one man 10 work for
another unless he has agreed to; and III he
has so agreed TO, but for no fixed period,
either may em a contract whenever ne
chooses. The one may work or refuse TO
work at will and the other may hire or dis
charge at will. Workingmen have the right
TO organize for the purpose of securing
higher wages, fewer hours OF labor or i'm
proving their relations with their employ
ers. They have the right to strike, pro-
vided the object is not to crafty malice or
lnfilct injury upon others, but to secure bet
ter terms of employment for themselves. A
peaceful and orderly strike is not in viola
ton Of the law.
"A body of men who, having organized
for purpose deemed beneficial 10 them
selves, have the right, when they feel Ii is
to the interest of their organi-
cation, TO refuse TO work. Their reasons
may seem Inadequate TO others, but If il
seems to be in their interests as members
OF an organization to refuse longer to work
II is their legal right to do so.
IF the conduct of the members Of an or
paniZafiOn iS legal IN itself IL docs pnt ha-
come Illegal because the organization di-
reefs one of its members to state the reason
for Its conduct. Whenever the courts can
see that a refusal OF members OF an organi-
cation to work with nonmembers may be
In the interests of the several members il
will not assume, in the absence of a finding
to the contrary, that the object of such re-
fusal was solely 10 crafty malice and TO in
fiict injury upon such nonmembers.
"One of the objections sometimes urged
against labor organizations is that un-
skilled wOrkmen receive as large compensa-
ton as those thoroughly competent. The
examination as to qualifications required
by the defendant associations tends TO do
away with the force of that objection as TO
them. The defendants had the right TO
strike for any reason they deemed a just
one, and had the right 10 notify their m
ployer of their purpose to strike.
Il am unable to see how il is possible to
deny the right of the defendant organiza-
tons and their members TO refuse 10 work
with nonmemberS when, in the event of in
jury by the carelessness of such cOem-
ployes. the burden would have TO be borne
by the injured without compensation from
the employer and with no financial respon-
sibility on the part of those causing the in
jury. Sc long as workmen must assume all
the risk of injury that may come TO them
through the carelessness Of coemplOyes,
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 10 put their men
in the place OF certain men at work who
were nOnmembers working for smaller pay
and they set about doing ii in a perfectly
lawful manner. They determined that If il
were necessary they would bear the burden
and expense of a strike to accomplish that
result, and in SO determining they were
clearly within their rights. A labor organ
ization is endowed with precisely the same
legal rights as is an individual TO threaten
10 do that which it may lawfully do"