The sun., 1904-08-29
AS TO THE NEW BRIBERY Law
HOW ABOUT THE MAN DEFEND.
ING HIS BUSINESS LIFE:

II He Is Held Up by . walking Delegate
and Pays to Avoid q strike, WIN He He
i;uilty Under the Prince Act?-Prince
Thinks He Will-IAwyers Not So Sure.
Now that Philip weinseimer, the presi-
dent Of the Building Trades Alliance. has
been twice indicted on the charge of ex-
tortion, there Is much curiosity among
employers and labor men as to how the
Prince law. which GOES into effect on Thurs
day, will operate. inns law provides that
any employer who gives or offers TO any
representative Of labor organization
money or other consideration for declaring
strike or calling a strike on shall be guilty
OF a misdemeanor. The penalty is impris-
onment for not more than year or maxi
mum fine Of $1,000.
Hitherto the delegate or representative
OF union could only be proceeded against
, under the law covering extortion. and the
District Attorney has often expressed his
regret that there was no law by which the
employer who gave the bribe could be
indicted The Prince law Is supposed to
make employers amenable for giving or
offering" money for declaring a strike or
calling it of, but according to some law
yers it is a question to be decided by the
courts whether it will cover the case OF
building contractor who has not backbone
enough to resist a demand from labor
delegate for money with the alternative
that a strike will be ordered against him.
If an employer offers bribe to walking
delegate, they say, and he takes it, the
walking delegate, according to all prec-
edents, will hold on to the money rather
than lose it by bringing a charge of bribery
against the employer in the courts. EN-
ployers who would stoop to offer bribe
know the men to approach, men who have
touched them before. and are not likely
to make a mistake when offering bribe.
The bribe taker in such cases would be
the last man in the world to assist In puri-
flying public morals by taking the matter
to the courts, while the bribe giver will
certainly not inform against himself.
law, who Is not a lawyer takes the stand
that the new law will cover the case Of en-
posess Of strSe fhe fe sp s punSment
for any employer who gives or offers
money. to labor representative, Hence,
according TO his reasoning. An employer
from whom money is e1torted gives"
the money anyway and thus comes under
the law.
=, Assistant Corporation Counsel George
H. Sterling said:
an the operation of any law the question
of intent must always be considered. Ifa
labor delegate goes to n contractor and
threatens to call strikes against him or TO
make it impossible for him to do business
unless he gives up, say $500. the question is,
does he commit crime il he gives this
ing crime or doing anything which makes
him a criminal. If he makes an agree
ment with the walking delegates after the
new lawis operative. and takes the initiative
law of the land A man may kill another
man in self-defenoe, but II it is shown that
he had no intention of killing the other and
that the act was done to save his own life,
then he is not criminal.
in the case Of an employer who offers
money to a walking delegate to declare Oh
strike, when the new law becomes opera
tive the employer commits a crime, as
the act was done deliberately and inten-
;ionally. In the case OF man who gives
money to walking delegate. under the
threat Of being ruined If he doesn't pay,
he does not give the money voluntarily.
II an employer says he gave q walking dele
gate money for ealing on Il strike and the
delegate says that it wBs n mutual agree
ment, then it will be for jury TO decide
whether the payment was voluntary or
forced"
j. Carpenter Of Alden L Carpenter who
has represented several of the unions in
bringing about the passage OF labor laws.
said:
1t is a question whether the new law
will affect the graft proposition very much.
Sometimes the dividing line between bri-
berry and eJtortion Is almost indistingliish-
able, and It will require the establishment
of a precedent by the courts to. decide
how the new law operates. In the case
of bribery by an employer, to find proof
a trick would have to be played on the
delegate. Marked money, for instance.
could be passed to the wa liking delegate.
There are honest and dishonest em-
plovers and there are honest and dishonest
walking delegates. To convict an em-
ployer in this way an honest walking dele
gate would have to be procured. En-
ployers who would want to give brbe
would not look for an honest delegate.
Lewis Harding of the Building Trades
Employers Association was chairman OF
a legislative comrnitteo which approved
the Prince bill. He said:
"We were heartily in favor of the bill.
but Mr.. Prince did not draft It, 1t was
drafted by Mr.. jerome and the Assembly
man introduced IL Mt his renlest