The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-07-16
Union GOES rO SUPREME COURT.
Railway Teiegraphers resting the CSnstl.
tuttOnaIity of the m Act.

tdtlW ~ NClC8 dDUtIH NS'Ius NV VIZ
tuttOnaIity of the Act.
WASHINGTON. July i5.-The appeal Of the
Order of Railway Te!egraphers from the
recent decision of Judge Evans of the Fede-
raj Court for the western district Of Ken
lucky, holding Section 10 of the so-called
Erdmann act Of 1898. which imposes a fine
of 81 900 upon railroads which discriminate
against employees because of their men,
bership in labor organizations, was docketed
in the Supreme Court to-day.
The case arose out Of a bill brought by
the order TO restrain the Louisville and
Nashville Railroad from -shadowing' its
organizers and intimidating by threats Of
discharge employees who wished to join
that organization. in alleged violation Of
the Erdmann act. The railroad in resisting
the issuance of the order attacked the
validity Of the Erdmann law as an inter-
ference with Its rights to manage its own
property in the selection of it's own en-
ployees, and alleged that it's efforts to pre-
serve the loyalty to its interests OF its 100
or 200 railway telegraphers, by excluding
men who owed higher interests to the order.
would be paralyzed by the granting OF the
injunction and that il would damage the
road to the amount of at least $i00. 600.
Judge Evans refused the injunction on
the ground that section 10 OF the Erd-
mann law was demonstrations because
not within the power given Congress 10
rel ulate' interstate commerce. The OBJ
ject OF the section, he said, was not the
regulation Of such commerce but to regu-
late certain phases Of the right of m in
terstate carrier to discriminate against
union labor in choosing its servants. re-
gardless of whether they were to be en-
ployed in intrastate or Interstate com
merce. II was also void, he held, because
IL was class legislation. because IL favored
union labor and even made IL criminal to
discriminate against, and yet permitted
union labor 70 discriminate arbitrarily
against everybody else. The Order OF
Telegraphers had no rights under the Erd-
mann act, he declared, IA IL was neither
an employee" or any one seeking EN-
ployment. to which that act applied, and
even those classes had no civil remedy.
IS section 10 was criminal in nature. In the
opinion Judge Evans uses this significant
language
While the tide OF advancing events
has wisely and inevitably forced upon the
courts the necessity OF giving broad and ap-
parently ever expanding latitude TO the
clause of the Constitution. still
IL NAV be that there should be a limit to its
elasticity. and possibly IL might not be an
altogether unmixed evil for some OF the
people low. az was once the habit, to call
for a strict construction OF that instrument
II such call served no other purpose IL night
be useful as the occasional hosting Of a
cautionary signal. Our Government was
organized and has greatly %prospered under
a system Of checks and balances n IL
should always be remembered that these
checks and balances yet remain. for most
essential purposes"
BY a coincidence an appeal by the same
road is also pending in n Supreme Court
from the Eastern District Of Kentucky.
where Judge Cochran reached an exactly
contrary conclusion by upholding the con
stitutionality Of section 10 and imposed
a fine Of 800 on Master Mechanic Adair for
discharging an employee because of his
membership in the Brotherhood Of Railroad
Eireunen