Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-08-15
OPEN SHOP ?, QUESTION
ILLINOIS CASE sDIsCUsSED By
JACKSON H. RALsToN.
Criticism of the Decision Of Judge
Adams in thesLahbr Union
Case. >:

The National Civic Federation has OBJ
tanned from Mr.. Jacksona H. Ralston Of
this city, criticisms Of the decision OF
Judge Francis Adams Of the Illinois ap-
peilate court, on the open shop" The de-
cision recently rendered by,Judge Adams Is
In effect that contract for the exclusive
employment Of members of labor union Is
| in itself illegal and, in Illinois. criminal.
If this decision is upheld by the supreme
court OF Illinois, as the expectation OF the
counsel Is that 1t will be, the Adams de-
cision will hold a prominent place In the
evolution of the legal status Of the CLOSED
shop" The matter has been taken up by
the National Association Of Manufactur-
ers. of which d. M. Parry is president, and
thousands Of copies Of the decision have
been distributed throughout the country.
The copies are being promulgated in
pamphlet form, the first page of which con-
tains a picture of Judge Adams. Then fol-
lows in large type the words: CLOSED shop
agreements criminal An epoch marking
decision. victory for free labor"
In his reply to Judge Adams decision Mr..
Ralston says in part:
Opposing Opinion.
THE learned court ignores the fact that
labor is property $50 to speak, in the hands
of the laborer, quite as much as right to
do business is property in the hands OF the
head of mercantile establishment. The
laborer may dispose of this property as he
sees fit. He may allow it to go to waste by
not working, and he may determine the
price he will demand for 1t. And similarly,
If one man may determine these questions
for himself, why may ne not elect to join
with one or more others and agree that he
will labor Or will not labor as they may,
by a majority vote, determine? Is his Ia
Dor any the less his own because he asso-
ciates another man with himself in nx1ng
the price or the circumstances under which
he will dispose Of it?
The appellate court apparently takes the
position that however proper it may be for
one man to determine that he will not work
for another, yet the element Of criminality
Is invoked when two or more men In the
|, form of union announce in advance that
they will not work except in company with
those whom they may select. But Is not
the right to take this position inseparable
from their property right in their own la
Dor, and having such property right, how
can the law properly interfere with their
actions? Suppose they unitedly determine
not to labor in association with negroes or
under a red-haired foreman, or with men
of another nationality? Why may they not
do so? In so doing, they simply dispose Of
them.
"If the existence of the union made it
more difficult for the employer to employ
nOn-union men, and even If the element Of
criminality were involved, the employer
could not resort to equity unless he has a
property right in the labor of the nom
union men-something he could not demon
strate Without this, reference to the
criminal code becomes meaningless since
a court OF equity cannot enjoin a crime I'M
less property or the right to property be
Involved.
notwithstanding the strong opinion Of
the writer that the whole decision of the
court is filled with logical errors approach
ing almost to the point of absurdty, 1t
does not follow that the Judgment Is erro-
neous. If illegal methods are employed to
bring about even the doing of a lawful act,
those guilty of their may be subject to
punishment, and it may have been in this
case that there was such illegality connect
ed with the particular acts charged against
the defendants, involving contempt of
court for violation of injunction against
plain interference with what are really
property rights: as would Justify their pun
icbr