The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1906-03-31
|UN|0N SHOP. CONTRACT
JUD|C|A[LY AFFIRMED
Samuel Gompers Reviews Re-
cent Decision of New York
Court of Appeals.
Union Shop Contract is Upheld
and Court Gives Out Some
Strong Opinions.


We have been very disrespectful to
those noble and vlrtuous patriots, the
sweaters, and those who, in the name
of Liberty, Americanism, the Constitu-
ton, and the Golden Rule, have declar-
ed war on the union shop. We have
treated in these columns the whole
anti-union campaign as farce and
bit OF plutocratic hypocrisy as far as
the appeals to sacred principles" were
concerned
Nay, we have done more; we have
had the hardihood to crticise, and some
say to ridicule. certain decisions of
solemn, ill-informed, or unconsciously
prejudiced judges who had permitted
sophistical attorneys to mislead thems
into condemning agreements voluntari-
ly made, providing for the union shop;
that is, for the exclusive employment
of union men in certain establishments
for certain periods. -@.5
How rash all that was! How could
we contradict learned judges in whose
opinion any " closed shop contract is an
illegal and wrongful contract, a con-
tract opposed to public policy, because
designed to create a monopoly" How
could we continue to advocate the union
shop and swear at the attempts OF
short-sighted employers and their OBJ
hging attorneys to outlaw all union
shop contracts?
Well, we could've did We were
guilty of those undeard of things, as
are the typographical unions that even
now, regardless of grotesque injunc-
tfons and Silly dicta, are fighting for
the union shop and the eight-hour day.
And, strange as it will seem to cur
friend, the enemy, one of the greatest
courts in the country, the New York
Court of Appeals, has just completely
justified our attitude.
That great court, to which, by the
way, organized labor is indebted for
several admirable, sound, progressive
decisions, has upheld typical case,
union shop contract, declaring it
perfectly legal and in no sense incom-
patible with public policy and industri-
al liberty.
More than that, it has treated tha
arguments of the grave counsel of the
i In the case, with a degree OF disrespect
that tsaalklnas ss.ept
lsunKind cut of g s. Finally, the
cirtuous and patriotic Champions or
liberty" in the form Of sweat-shops
and anti-union shops, have not even the
consolation Of one or mere dissenting
opinions. The court was unanimous!
Will the foundations of American
liberty and American government with
stand this shock?
We shall see. Meantime let us
briefly give the facts Of the New York
case, which we commend to the study of
thoughtful employers and honest law-
yers, as we'll as the attention of or
ganized labor. s
The New York local of the Protective
Coat Tailors and Pressers Union had
entered into an agreement with a cloth
ing firm, whereby the latter, for a suf-s
ficfent consideration, bound itself to
employ none but good standing mem
bers of that union. The firm had
violated the contract, and the union
had brought suit to recover damages
for the breach. u sEs
In the trial court the union won but
the favorable decision was later revers-
ed by the appellate division. Two
questions were involved: First, was
the contract a good, legal contract?
Second, was the defense sufficient on its
face? The defense was that the con-
tract was not enforceable in couH OF
law because it was opposed to public
policy, in that it operated to restrain
trade and establish monopoly in labor.
This, it will be remembered, was pre-
cisely the ground upon which some two
years ago high Illinois court declared
closed shop contract void and un-s5
lawful. :, 5Ees
But the New York Court of Appeals
declined to take that view. It held
that the garment workers union shop
contract was perfectly valid, lawful.
and proper, and that the employers
were bound by it.
By implication, the court rejected the
contention that union shop contracts
tend to create monopolies and as such
are injurious to the public We have
shown how absurd and hollow the con-
tention is. how it logically leads to the
repudfatioin of all contracts, and how
employers have always had the right
to make contracts in regard to raw
material, machinery, and things Of the
kind that the hypocritical and pseudo-
patriotic employers have attempted to
deny to organized labor.
The New York decision completely
vindicates the union shop. and covers
its rabid, fanatical, or vicious enemies
with confusion and ridicule We al
most pity the plutocratic lawyers ana
the prejudiced, gullible judges who
have been betrayed into making aillv.
farcical decisions against the right Of
contract in the name Of the right Of
contract. 3r
The union shop rests on the right OF
contract and the right Of property and
the right to dispose Of ones labor.
Before the Asphalt scandal Is OFF our
hands here comes United States Min
lister to Bolivia, sorsby, charged with
wrecking an American mining enter
IN Ho%