The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-09-10
PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AND THE
MILLER CASE.

Office been an employee OF private estab-
lishment, his case would have received
little or no public attention Similar ex-
perienoes in various lines OF industry are
by no means infrequent. Sometimes an
employer stands by his non-union en-
ployee or the man who has become OBJ
jectionable TO his fellow unionists, and
experiences q strike In support OF quite
the same principle rs that involved In the
Miller case. More frequently the employer
bows to the demands Of the union. and let's
the man 70 as the easiest solution OF a
troublesome question.
Concisely stated, the Miller case stands
thus: Miller incurred the displeasure OF
his fellow unionists. and was expelled from
the union upon the ground that he had
violated their rules Az one not in good
and regular standing in the International
Brotherhood Of Bookbinders, Local Union
No. 4, the rules Of that organization de-
clared it impossible for him to hold his
position in the bindery. Complaint was
fled and Miller was discharged. He APP
pealed on the ground that his discharge
was q violation Of the Civil Service law OF
the United States. His case was investi-
gated by the Civil Service Commission,
whose findings were submitted to President
Roosevelt. By Presidential order, under
date Of July 10, Miller was reinstated on
the ground that mo rules or resolutions
ride the Laws OF the United States"
Az a case In q private esta blishment.
little or no publicity would have been given
to it. Az It stood. there were involved
questions Of public concern Of no small
importance. Az an employee OF private
establishment, there was no law to which
he could have appealed for redress. or even
for hearing. As an employee Of the Gov
eminent, his rights were protected. This
appears as a manifest inequality in the
administration OF justice as an abstract
principle. public employee would seem
to have rights which az a private citizen
he does not possess, although his official
position was merely that OF workman
and q wage Garner The principle laid
down by President Roosevelt is easily and
logically e1tensible. II faithful and
satisfactory employee may not justly be
discharged from a Government shop or
factory solely upon the ground Of his atti-
tude toward labor union, there Is no ap-
parent reason why man In private estab-
lishment should be debarred from similar
immunity. The scope of the functions Of
justice is not supposed to be limited to the
field Of Governmental institutions
A review of Miller's case indicates that
he incurred the disfavor Of his associates
through his fidelity to his employer, the
Government Of the United States. The
American Printer in its August issue, states,
in effect, that Foreman Miller became dis
liked by his associates because he made
them do their work. 1t appears that he
insisted that those who were under his i'm
mediate supervision should render fair
Union No. =, l. B. Of B, regarded that as a
demoralizing principle. Its rules speci-
fed that which. in its opinion. constituted
a fair days work. Foreman Miller found
that it was easily possible for binder to
exceed the prescribed product within the
prescribed eight hours. He insisted upon
eight hours work and upon the proper
product OF eight hours work. That meant
the binding Of twelve or fourteen books
per day instead Of the ten provided for by
the rules OF the union His insistence that
tho ten be exceeded constituted violation
of the rules Of Local Union No. 4, and Miller
was duly punished by the union. Having
lost standing in the union for this offence,
his employment in that shop became i'm
possible from the standpoint OF the
Brotherhood.
Millep's reinstatement led to threats of a
strike, but the union did not quite dare to
make it, and the affiliated orders held aloof
and yielded only limited moral support.
Upon tho issue involved the Government
carried its case. Miller may be discharged
again some time, but if he Is it will be for
some other reason than that Of the violation
the employment Of a non union man in the
Government book bindery.
The incident illustrates one Of the most
important issues between employers.
whether public or private. and labor or
CARNATIONS. That is, the right Of labor
organization to determine who shall or
shall not be employed, and to prescribe the
amount Of work to be done by an indi-
viduafemployee. BY his determination Of
the Miller case President Roosevelt has
set himself squarely against the union
attitude 50 far as it affects those employed
by the Government under the Civil Service
rules. But he goes even beyond that. In
a letter to Secretary Cortelyou, under date
Of July IA, Mr.. Roosevelt refers to the judy
ment Of the Anthracite Coe! Strike Com
mission. and says:
" Is adjudVed and awarded that no person shall
be refused employment or in any way Disseminated
against on account OF membe rshlp or non member
ship In any labor organization: and that here shall
be no discrimination against or Interference with
any employee who Is not member OF any labor
organization by means Of such organization.
heartily approve Of this award and judgme nt
by the commission appointed by me which Itself
Included member of a labor union. This com 6.
mission was dealing with abor organizations work
ing for private employers. 1t is. OF course mere
elem entary deccncy TO require that all the Govern
ment departments shall be handled in accordance
with the principles thus clearly and fea rlessly
enunciated.
By this announcement the President
declared himself az definitely and posi-
lively opposed to one of the most vital
issues OF labor unionism, namely, the right
Of unions to place ban upon the employ
ment OF non-unionists in public institutions
or in private establishments. We're the
attitude and opinion Of the President to he
crystallized into law which would protect
the rights Of a non-unionist in a private
establishment as 1t does in public institu-
ton. by the Civil Service rules, inionism
Il lroa tha. ai.r - "a