The sun., 1905-12-02
IN FAVOR OF TAILORS' UNION.
COtRT or APPEALS DECISION IN
JACOBS-(OHEN CASE.

The Majority Holds That Emplo,cr Gan
Enter into an Agreement 10 EnpIo o.,
Union ATen Only The Minority says
Creates an Unlawful Combination.
ALBANY, Dec. !. After struggling with
the problem for some weeks the Court Of
Appeals by bare majority vote, in the
ta-c OF Jacobs w. Cohen, decided that an
employer can enter into a voluntary agree
ment 10 employ union men exclusively.
The majority opinion Of the Court, written
by Judge Gray, is concurrcd in by Chief
; Judge Cullen and Judges Haight and Werner.
Judge Nann wrote a dissenting opinion,
! concurred in by Judge Bartlett. Judge
| OBrlen, the seventh member of the court
wos III and absent when the case was decided
lhis decision is of immense importance
| 10 both employers and unions, and in his
dissenting opinion Judge Vann points out
| that the Court OF Appeals In uphoding the
! contract between the Cohens, New York
city tailors, and the 'railors' Union reverses
Itself. The employers gave a $500 note to
| bind the agreement with the union. Judge
| Gray In his ma ajority opinion says
Whatever else may be said OF H. this is the
case OF an agreement voluntarily made bv
| an employer with his workmru which bound
| Inc latter TO give their skilled services for
| certain period Of time upon certain con-
| ditions regulating the performance of tho
work to be done. and restricting the class of
! workmen who should be engaged upon it
! 10 such persons as were in aflliation with an
association organized by tho employers
workinen with reference to the carrying on
! of the very work
I 10 would seem as though an employer
should be ununestionabv FREQ to enter into
! RllCh n contract with bia work for
conduct of the business without its being
, deemed obnoxious upon any ground Of public
policy. III II might operate to prevent some
persons from being employed by the firm,
or. possibly, from remaining in the FIRMS
employment. that is but an incidental feature.
Its restrictions were not Of an oppressive
nature. operating generally in the community
to prevent such craftsmen from obtaining
employment and from earning heir livelihood.
II was but a private agreement bet weon
an employer and his smployecs concerning
the conduct of the business for a year. and
securing to the latter an absolute right 10
limit the class of their fellow workmen 10
those persons who should hc in afiI.a'ion
with an organization entered into with tho
design OF protecting their interests in carry
ing on the work as, indeed the agreement
recites.
Nor does the answer avor that IT was in
tended thereby 10 tnlurc other workmon. or
that II was mad" with n malicious molivc In
cocrcn any TO their iniury throuch ,heir
threatened dcprivation of all opportunity Of
pursuing their lawful vornrior To coerco
Workm"n 10 become members of tho cm-
ployees' organization through such a CON
tract is not tho allrgat ion of something which
tho law will. necessarily. regard as contra
venng public polcy The allegation thai its
purposes are in restraint of trade. or that
they hamper and restrict the freedom of
citizen, or that they are against public pol /
icy. " is the mere statement of legal conou- .
sion
The nviolability of the right Of persons to !
freedom of action may wcllnXtrnd 10 any con-
cert of action for legitimate ends, if con-
sistent with the maintenance" or law and order |
in the community and If nor interfering with !
lha enjoyment and the exercise by others of /
their constitutional rights. Their right to /
combine and TO cooperate for ne promotion Of /
such ends as he increase Of wages. the cur |
tailment Of hours of labor the regulation of !
their relations with their employer, or for :
IN