The sun., 1903-04-02

| TO the effect that the employees were satis-
! fled with their wages and conditions OF SER
, vice are not supported; that irrespective OF
! the question whether the men or the COM
! mittees of the brotherhoods representing
/ them first suggested the increase OF wages
, and change of rules, the employees them
selves at and for long time prior TO the I'll.
ing OF the bill OF complaint, were dissatisfied
! with their wages and conditions OF service.
and a real difference OF opinion existed
| between the railroad and a large majority OF
| its employees, members OF the brotherhoods.
| with respect TO their wages. and that the
| defendants, as officers and committees of the
brotherhoods. were fully authorized. both
by reason OF their official relation to their
members and also by direct writton au-
thority, to represent them in the EFFORT to
secure higher wages and ,S. change
instead OF being officiously ordered by de-
PENDANTS. was a result OF the vote OF the en-
ployees. acting without coercion and di-
rectly authorizing the same.
The Court further finds, after full ex-
| animation and analysis Of the evidence.
that the charge Of a conspiracy TO interfere
with the interstate commerce Of the United
States or the mail service of the United
States is not sustained
In discussing these issues. after review
ing, many, authorities. the Court concludes,
and lays down the law governing the rights,
duties and privileges OF employees.
Judge Adams strongly recommends
NIT the questions in dispute to arbitration.
Touching that point the Court says
! cannot conclude this decision without
expressing the sincere wishes OF the Court.
that II the parties are unable to adjust their
differences by such mutual concessions as
are necessary to that end; the offer made
arbitration provided for by the act Of Con;
anothcr instance @ Of rational and Intelligent
adjust ment of business difficulty be ex-
hibited to an expectant public.
The right of labor to organize for legiti-
mate defensive and protective purposes
Is recognized by Judge Adams. He holds
that employees have the right to strike /,
to peaceably enforce their demands, but
that they are not at liberty to otherwis
use their organization as weapon to in
terfere with or injure the employer or
co-employees. The Courts decision on this
point says:
An employee has an unpuestionable right
his labor at the outset OF his employment, or
unless restrained by contract obligations.
nd the q
nre not complied with by the employer. he
has clear right. either not to engage or
work. What one may do all may do
They may seek and obtain counsel and
obisotions in relation to their here empioyer, and
persons interested In their welfare may ad-
wise, aid and assist them in securing such
subserye their interests. and what they may
lawfully do singly or together they may
organize and combine to accomplish.
In like manner as capital is combined for
legitimate purposes. so labor may combine
for legitimate purposes, but q is right Of COM
bination and the resulting right to strike OF
quit their employment is a weapon for the
defence and protection OF employees. and
not a weapon OF attack.
They may. by peaceful and lawful combina-
tion and concert OF action. be able TO so control
the supply Of labor as TO compel the employer
20 come to their terms, but they are not at
liberty to make use of this weapon to other
wise interfere with or injure the employer
or co-employee.
The clear line Of demarkation. recognized
by all law authorities is that the lawful and
permissible strike must not be attended by
violence TO or destruction OF property. nor by
coercive measures intended to prevent the
employer from securing other employ ees or
otherwise carrying on his business, according
to his own judgment.
INDIANAPOLIS. Ind. April l.-When in
formed of the decision in the Wabash case.
John Mitchell. president Of the United
Mine Workers. said;
"To me 1t looks like great victory for
labor OF course more Of us expected that