The labor argus. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1906-1915, 1907-10-03


the Cleveland Citizen. We do not
believe that the courts can so any
further than to reat1irm the famous
Cor, more properly, the infamous)
bred Scott decision and uphold the
vicious principles that some men
have a right to claim ownership in
other men.
That is precisely what has oc-
CURED, in the United States courts
at that. Federal Judge y. G.
Jones, in the case of the louisville
y Nashville railroad against the
Alabama railroad commission, has
just handed down an opinion that
spells slavery in every line. The
state of Alabama had attempted to
compel the Louisville u Nashville
railway to obey the laws of that
state and arrested some of the en-
ployes. The corporation secured
an injunction restraining the state
officials frominterfcring in it's busi.
ness. In redcring decision, the
court declared, among other things:
can employer has a property
right in the services of his work
men in his business. The employer
can maintain an action against any
one who cntices his servant to leave
him, or prevent the servant from
working for his employer. This
property right is protected by the
sanction of our criminal laws also. -
If that is not plain and to the
point then we do not grasp the
meaning Of words. We might add,
perenthetically, that similar de.
cision was rendered in Michigan,
several months ago, where court
ruled, in granting an injunction,
that a certain firm (union) had no
right to entice employees from u
competitor (non-uniOn), even
though higher wages and better
working conditions were offered.
The Importance of this latest de.
cision in Alabama is found not only
in the fact that the Michigan prece-
dent becomes more firmly establish
ed, but in the thinly yelled threat
that criminal proceedings, as we'll
as civil action, may be instituted
against any who refuse to obey this
newest Interpretation of law.
We might question this chattel-
slave principle that San employer
has property right in the services
of his workmen,' and ask num-
Der of impertinent questions, such
as how and where the employer OBJ
tained that right, and what are
the duties that have been imposed
upon an employe, in return for
this alleged right, but we realize
the almost utter futility of debating
the proposition with capitalistic
courts, They hold the club and
WELD it whenever and wherever
they choose. They can read what
ever meaning they will into the
laws, and Legislative bodies ar be-
coming mutual admiration sooie-
ties, to enact or not to enact such
laws as are deemed proper by the
Cline judicial minds" of our petty
cars called courts for convenience.
1t might have been expected that
such a decision as the foregoing
would not escape the attention Of
the plutocratic watchdogs. The
Wall Street Journal prominently
displayed the Jones opinion and
declared that "the principal might
have a very important bearing
upon the relations of employers
and trades unions" The Wall
Street organ also wonders s'that
larger use has not been made of
this property right (by the en-
ployer), in disputes with organized
labor when there is clear evidence
of employees being enticed away
from his employment
1t may come to that soon. The
employer was probably slow to act
because "this property right" was
not fully developed. But usage
establishes customs, and a few
more court decisions along the
same lines as the foregoing may
thoroughly clinch the property
right idea, for that is what Ameri-
can capitalism is anxious to ac-,
complish.
This nation is entering a new
stage of slavery, no matter what
fools or knayes may say to the con-
,rary- Capitalism must constantly