, 1908-10-08

employers, Necause the necessities OF
the single elupsoye may Compel MIN
10 accept any prico nat IS offered. Inc
accumu aton or a fund Tor those who
leei that tnv VASES ouvfeu arc pviow
tie legitimate market ya,ue OF sucL'
LABOR Is uesirap1e They have the
right TO appoint officers, who shall
auy,se hen as to the course to ne
tanvn III ie.atlons WIN tuelr e.nploy'
ers. Ihey may unite WIN otner unions.
Inc onivers .ioy Appoint, or auy o.her
person they choose 10 ilsten to, may
advise them as to the proper course 10
be taacn, u.uu III rega.u " tueir coni-
mon employ ment; or II they choose to
appo.ut any one, he may oruer Lneni
on pam OF expulsion from the union
pesi.eaUly 70 leave the employ OF their
employ err ecause any OF the terms OIL
the employment are unsatisfactory
The foregoing is regarded as the
clearest exposition Of the rights OF
.aboring men to organize for mutual
protection eyer set forth by a court.
They may unite for the promotion Of
leaders to act for them and to direct
Their movements. They may unite
with other unions. Their leaders may
order them to quit the employment
upon pain OF expulsion, and such a
strike is not an infraction of any law.
Subsequently. acting upon this rule
of law aid down by Judge Taft, the
brotherhoods OF railroad trainmen and
fremen In 1903 took direct advantage
of this clear presentation of the law
and secured the dissolution of an in
junction against them. In this case,
the representatives of these two broth,
erhoods, after failing to secure the ad.
vantage of wages and betterment OF
conditions demanded by the brother.
hoods. had been forced to call a strike
as their last resort. and thereupon an
Injunction was filed by the railroad
company in the United States circuit
court in st. Louis, against the officers
of these b~rotherhoods. enjoining them
from calling a strike on the Wabash
as an Interstate railroad, on the ground
among others, that the officials of the
brotberhoods we're not employees of the
railroad, and that their action in com
bining in calling a. strike would be o
direct interference with interstate
commerce.. and was therefore an I'm.
lawful conspiracy.
The rights of organization and the
rights OF representation, as set forth
by Judge Taft, we're thus directly in
volved. The attorney representing
those b~rotherhoods In the hearing or
the motion to dissolve the injunction
granted in this Ease used the above
quoted statement of Judge Taft az
the most lucid and effective defense
II the action of the brotherhoods and
their official. The court (Judge
Adams) found from the evidence thai
there was an existing dispute about
he conditions of service on the rail
road. and that the officials of the bro
%therhoods had been directed by the
members of the brotherhoods to call
strike; that h two unions a
right to act In unison In their enorts
to secure the betterment OF the con
ditions OF their members, tnat al
agreement to strike under those cir
cumstances was not an con
spiracy, and the injunction was there
uron dissolved.
In h Ann Arbor case, In which Mr
p. M. Arthur was involved, MT. TAU
held exactly the same, with the aoo
tsonal holding thai a boycott lnVolVins
third and innocent parties n anect