The morning journal-courier., 1908-01-29
AN INTERESTING OPINION.

We refer to the opinion just render ed by the Supreme court of the United States with regard to the constitu- tIonality of the law forbidding railroad companies engaged in interstate com merce to discriminate against mem bers of labor organizations as inter esting" rather than as important be- cause we have not the slightest req son to believe that the now declared unconstitutionality of the act will have the far-reaching results some have al- ready hastily concluded. The relation ship of employer and enploye will in the end be determined by influ- ences of a character more practical in their nature than acts of legislation. Acts of legislation may aid in the settlement of the general labor prob lem or they may retard it, but the laws which will finally control it will be the laws of human nature operat- ing on basis of self-interest.
 The case which has called forth from the Supreme court it's determin- ation of the right of railroad to dis charge a man in it's employ because of his membership in an organization of labor is, in the words of layman, this: The official representative of the Nashville Railroad company discharg- ed fireman who is a member of the Brotherhood of Bremen and Engine men because of his Organization con- nections. The railroad desired to know whether the law which forbade it's dischsrging an employe was consti- tutional, and the issue raised by the in- quiry was one that organizations of labor were interested in having set tied. To that extent at least the liti- gation which has followed may be said to have had its origin in a mu- tually friendly agreement to disagree This discharged employe, acting through his organization, had the of lending railroad official indicted In the federal courts of east Kentucky. He was found guilty on the ground that carriers and their employees, being ad- juncts Of interstate commerce, the law applied 10 them, and the court denied the plea of the company that the law was void because it interfered with the liberty of contract and was class legislation. This cleared the ground for an appeal to the highest court in the land, where the case came strip ped of all technicalities. and prepared to be settled on its merits.
 Six of the judges declared the law ufconstitutional on the ground ad- vanced by the defendant. Two of them 1issen.ed from the decision of the court and one took no part. The fol lowing paragraph from the finding of the majority of the court states one phase of the case clearly: Tt was the legal right of the defendant, Adair however unwise such course might have been, to dismiss Coppage be- cause cf his being member of a la bor organization, as 1t was the legal right of Coppage, if he saw fit to dc so, however unwise such a course or his part might have been, to quit the service in which he was engaged be. cause the defendant employed those who were not members of some labor organization. In all such particulars the employer and the employe have equality of rights, and any Legislation that disturbs that equality is an ar. bitrary interference with the liberty legally justify in a free land" It ii dificult to see how this doctrine car be questioned since it runs on all four. with the accepted doctrine that tho rights of one man end where the rights of another man begin And a. for the contention that the interstate character of the service performed brought the case under an exceptiona heading the court says: But wha possible legal or logical connection i there between an employees member ship in . labor organization and tn, carrying on of interstate commerce Such relation to labor organization cannot have in itself any bearing upol the commerce with which the employ, is connected by his labor and services Labor associations, we assume, are or ganized for the general purpose O
 improving or bettering the condition and conserving the interests of thei
 HeUlDeIS as dA ObJCN entirely legitimate and to be com rnended rather than condemned. Bu surely those associations as labor or ganizations have nothing to do witt interstate commerce as such. V
 The law of the land in this connec ton is thus determined. but as VI have already intimated it Is not tn