Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1905-07-05

| does not justify causing the discharge
by his employer an individual Iaborer
working under contract. 1t is easy
to see that, for different reasons. an
act watch can be done in legitimate
competition by one or Two or three
persons, each proceeding independent
| ~, might take on an entirely differ
ent character. both in its nature ami
ats purpose, if done by hundreds in
icom5ination.
I'VE have no desire to put obstacles
J in the way Of employees who are seek
ing by combination to obtain better
conditions for themselves and their
families. We have no doubt that la
boring men have derived and may
hereafter derived advantages from Or
ganization. We only say that under
correct rules of law, and with d proper
regard for the rights of individuals,
labor unions cannot be permitted to
drive men out Of employment because
they choose to work independently. If
/ disagreement between those who fur
nfsh the capital and those who per-
form the labor employed in industrial
enterprise are to he settled only by
industrial wars It would give a great
advantage to combinations OF employees
If they could be permitted by force
to obtain a monopoly of the labor
market. But we are hopeful that this
kind of warfare will soon give way to
industrial peace and that rational
methods of settling such controversies
win be adopted universally"
The court again says: THE prim-
airy right Of the plaintiff to have the
benefit Of his contract and to remain
undisturbed in the performance of it
IS universally recognized. The right
to dispose of ones labor as he will and
to nave the benefit of ones lawful
contracts, is incident to the freedom Of
the individual, which lies at the foun-
iation of the government in all coun-
tries that maintain the principles of
civil liberty. Such right can lawful
ly be interfereJ with only by one who
is acting in the exercise of an equal
or superior right which comes in CON
fiict with the other An intentional in
reference with such a right without
lawful justification is malicious in
law. even if it is from good motives
and without express malice. In the
present case the judge submitted to
the jury first the question whether the
defendant inte~fered with the plain
tiff'S rights under his contract with
Goodrich & Co, and, second, the cues
ton whether, if he did, the intertvr-
enee was without justifable cause.
The jury were instructed that, unless
the defendants interference directly
caused the termination of the plain
tiff's employment, there could be no
recovery. The substance of the de-
PENDANTS contention was that if he
acted under the contract between the
boot and shoe workers union and the
employer, in procuring the plaintiffs
discharge. his interference was law
full.
"Tnis contention bring, US to an
examination of The, contr.. It. That
part which relates to the persons to
be employed contains, first, a provi-
sion that the employer will hire only
members ot'the union; this has no APP
plication to the plaintiffs case, for it
is an agreement only for the future,
and the plaintiff had been hired a long
time before. The next provision is
that the employer will not retain in
his employment a worker after receiv-
ing notice that he is Objectionable to
the plHGiaQIns fdjthe lr,,op accoun of being
OF union rules or laws, Jr from any
othe cause. The first two possible
causes for objection could not be ap-
piled to persons in the situation Of
the plaintiffs, who were not members
of the union or amenable to it's laws.
AS to such persons the only provision
applicable was that the firm would
not retain worker VINO was objection
able to the union from any cause, how
ever arbitrary the objection or unrea-
sonable the cause might be- This
provision purported to authorize the
union TO interfere and deprive any
worker of his employment for no rea-
son whatever, in the arbitrary exer-
else of it's power.
Whatever the contracting parties
may do if no one but themselves is
concerned, it is evident that, as against
the workman, a contract of this kind
does not of itself Justify interference
VITA his employment by third person
who made the contract with his en-
ployer No one can legally interfere