Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1906-07-13
QUESTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Decision by Judge Wendell P. Stafford
in a Case Between Employers and the
Labor Union.

DECISION by Judge wendell p. STAFFORD
in Case Between Employers and the
Labor Union.
Some weeks ago Justice Wendell p.
Stafford of ST. Johnsbury gave decision
from the bench at Washington which has
attracted wide attention. The case was
one between employers and the labor
union. few sentences will show the
clearness and force of the decision rem
dered.
There is no great difficulty in stating
the rules of law which apply to case
like this. They are only the rules Of
reason and justice. which must commend
themselves to all unprejudiced persons
who value their freedom If A desires to
employ Il to work for him, and b desires
to be employed by A. to work for him on
his terms, has no right 70 interfere
between them. 1t makes no difference
that formerly worked for nor that
he would be glad to work for him again
in place of b. The right of b to work
for a, and the right of A to have b work
for him under those circumstances can
not be questioned. c can have no ex-
cuse for interfering with their arrange
ment. To speak bluntly IT is none OF his
business. If \ represents ten men and d
represents a hundred. the rule is exactly
the same. II B has entered into a bind
ing contract with to work for him
stated period, he cannot break that con-
tract without making himself liable in
damages. has a property right in that
contract II G persuades Il to break such
a contract, c himself becomes liable 10
for damages. There is nothing new
about this rule OF law. 1t has been rec
ognized i'm England and in this country
for centuries. II several men agree and
combine together to persuade AS work
men to break their contracts of service
frev- VI,n
and compelling A to employ them instead,
the court will issue an injunction for
bidding them to do so; and If they dis
obey the injunction the court will punish
them for contempt of its order g.
1T is a question of individual right.
Those who wish to surrender a part OF
their individual freedom of action for the
sake of the larger benefits that may be
gained through union have an unquestion-
ed right to do so. The law recognizes
their right and gives standing to the
union itself. but the right of those VINO
choose to remain outside is just as
sacred and inviolable in the eyes OF the
law" No better definition of
freedom has ever been given than this:
That one mans liberty ends where an
other mans liberty begins. Union men
would think themselves unjustly treated
II they should be importuned and be-
sought. piciIeted. followed about the
streets. and made objects Of ridicule and
contempt because they refused to leave
the union. or because they refused TO
continue in the service of an employer
they did not care to serve.
There is something more important
than fair wages, and that is the right to
work for any wages the workman Is
willing to accept There is something
more important than an eight-hour day.
and that is a free day. Any enhancement
of wages, any lessening of the hours of
labor, any improvement in the conditions
of employment would be too dearly
bought by the surrender OF the smallest
fraction of individual liberty under the
law. Workmen themselves are the last
men in the world who should willingly
suffer the loss of such a right That is
about all they have gained, or that has
been gained for them. in the long struggle
for rights which has been going on since
the beginning of organized society. In
dividual men, even great classes of men,
may lose sight of its importance for a
time in their desire to secure some coveted
advantage. but the law does not lose
sight Of 1t, and so long as the ancient
landmarks of our jurisprudence are OBJ
served these rights will be safe"
Remarking on this decision the Los
Angeles Times, says. 1T is broad illum-
mating and so obviously right that it
is beyond successful disputation. II eX-
presses generic, fundamental truth. which
must sooner or later be recognized rs
sanctioned in all branches of jurisprud-
ence and industry. The gates of hell
shall not prevail against it,"
One phrase in this decision has been
much quoted. 1t is the one here given:
There is something more important than
an eight-hour day, and that is. a free
day" Within a week this was caught up
and printed on blotters in Washington
This all-comprehensive phrase" said
a Providence paper, deserves to be i'm
mortal, for it will express undying verify"