The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-11-10
THE aCoNsTITUTIoNALrfYn OF THE
 aUNION.n

THE aCoNsTITUTIoNALrrYn OF THE l .UNION.p
 Labor the loser if Louisville and Nashville defeats Attorney General" is the heading of an article in Wash ington paper referring to suit of the Louisyiiis and Nashville before the su- preme Court. in which the constitution aiity of the Edmunds act is involved. Our Washington contemporary, The Times, quotes Attorney General Bona parte as saying:
 1 Is 1t right to discriminate against or black klist an employe because of his membership in 2 labor organization, q carrier which the courts should be zeal 1 ous to protectg asked the Attorney form ssociae,onss s1s for o tbsIr fnafnai ad o l vantage cannot be denied.
 It is recognized by both national and
 ey law wScS ssS is a ' sse sse of 5hs right to afiiliate with political or said that State coaia not prevent em- ployers from interfering with the po- ittical and religious liberty of their
 MT. Bonapare said that should this 1 law be declared unconstitutional the 1 whole system of government mediation Neiil and Chairman Knapp. of the In- 1 terstate Commerce Commission have >been laboring so successfully this year
 He pleaded that a law seeking to | avoid strikes and lockouts, thus pre- venting interruptions to interstate the statute book.
 1 The Attorney General invokes the Constitution in a matter over which there is no contention, towit: the right of labor to organize. But constitution ally organized labor has no ccnstitu- tional right to force or attempt to force itself upon employers. It has no con- stitutional right to prohibit or inter. fere with the employment of morgan ized labor. It is not an uneonstitu. tional act to refuse to join labor union.
 If. then. unorganized labor is not un- constitutional, how can it be unconstitu- tional to employ 1t? An employer may refuse to employ any labor not in the union, without violating the Constita- ton.
 Equally, an employer may refuse to employ any labor in the union. with out violating the Constitution. Refusal to employ union labor is not an attack upon its constitutional right to organS ize. It means merely refusal to ac- cept It's arbitrary terms or become a victim of it's unconstitutional and de- structive acts. It assumes rights over property not it's own and destroys 1t in reprisa1 of unlawful demands refused. | An attack upon the unconstitutional acts of a constitutionally organized body is not an attack upon the consti- nationality of its organization. The At- torney General should note the differ ence.
 Organized labor as 1t has been con- victed is in disrepute. The judgment of equity must condemn it. It denies to it's unorganized brother the right to labor, the right to that life. liberty and pursuit of happiness" which is tho natural heritage and constitutional re- cogniton of man; for what liberty has the unorganized laborer if he be denied the right to work? And if denied the right to work. what becomes of his pursuit of happiness and his life?
 The sopnistry of the Attorney Gen. eral is not obscure to the eye of the analyst. It is the play of the politician to the galleries, the Tabor vote'' is in the scale and in organized labor can be of it's organization, which is not dis puted by anybody; but the unconstitu- tionality of its acts must be decried by everybody-the politician excepted.
 The Attorney General should know does kno&-that organized labor has no more constitutional rights than .n- constitutional to refuse to employ un- organized labor, it is equally not un- constitutional to refuse to employ or ganized labor. In neither case would the Constitution be involved. the em- ployer simply acting upon his consti- tutional right to employ or refuse to employ whom he pleased.
 'Is 1t right to discriminate against | or blacklist an employe because of his membership in a labor organization?" asks the Attorney General. Is it right to discriminate against or blacklist an | employe because of his n-membership | in a labor organization? Is it. MT. At torney General?
 And yet this is what the labor union does, and what 1t demands that em- ployers shall do.
 Question: Where does the Constitu- tion come in? Will the Attorney Gen. eraI prosecute organized labor for it's unconstitutional interference with the rights of unorganized labor?
 AN AERIAL NAVY.
 It begins to look as though there will have to be another governmental