The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-08-09
FALLAcIoUs REASONING.

The many strikes that have occurred in various sections of the country recently have naturally brought the matter before the courts. and there have been a number of judicial deliverances and decisions on the subject Among these we note case which recently came before one Judge Kavanaugh-though we do not now recall his location-in which 1t strikes .ds that the judge delivers both good and aad doc Urine. After declaring that he intended to make examples of the men who were guilty of violence or intimidation. he added:
 Suppose mob was going over to attack to go oyer on the north side on my bus peaceably over there, my purpose is
 sohs oo oyer sns here aSe St ne right Co do that. even though my own bus mess Is to go on the north side So with keep away from the mob fl the the mob is doing that which Is unlawful.
 We presume no one will doubt the soundness of that doctrine. Whether a mob is composed of lynchers or strikers makes no difference. If they are bent on violence. and a man who joins in and marches with them Is technically as guilty as the others. even though he mas no sympathy with their objects. When a mob is on the war path, the safe place for peaceable citizens is somewhere else.
 But there Is another part of the Judges charge which seems to us to be con- tradiction. He said:
 They have the right to tell men who are going there to work that a strike is on and advise them not to work thers: to try and induce them to refuse to work there and to argue with them. They have who Is going or coming from there but the very moment violence or any intim- idation begins around the places 1t be- comes another question.
 We do not consider this sound doctrine, for just what Judge Kavanaugh says the strikers have a right to do is what leads to most of the disorder and violence att tending so many strikes. According to this theory. if strike is ordered at a certain mill. for example, the strikers have a right to surround the mill and line up at all the entrances and prevent other workmen from going to work. The fact that they "accost peaceably" the would-be workers makes no difference. To stop men who want to get job, to ad- wise them not to do it, and "to try and induce them to refuse to work there, and to argue with them," is certainly an in- terference with those who are seeking work and is an effort to injure the em- ployers.
 And that is not all. Suppose mechan- fa xxrI1. ntvalrn hot f,, man has a right to seek work, resents this peaceable interference with what he considers his natural rights, and by thus resenting it brings on difficulty, are not the strikers primarily responsible for any violence that may result? Most essured- ly they are and the law should 50 de- clare. The law ought to be laid down that one man has no right to interfere with the right of another to work. That a man has a right to quit work when he chooses, provided he violates no contract, is unquestionabIe. We may even admit that employees have right to strike in a body though this is not so clear.
 Admitting. however. that employees have a right to quit work, individually or col lectively, there their rights end. They have no right to injure the property of their late employer or to prevent him from obtaining other laborers. They have no right to assemble at or near the place of business of their late employer and at- tempt, either by persuasion or sorce, to prevent others from obtaining employ ment. Judge Kavanagh's reasoning Is fallacious and what he says may be le- gally done is often the first step to vio- lence and lawlessness.