The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1908-01-30
FAR-REACHING DECISION.

| The Supreme Court has been calling
needed halt in the mania for legisla-
ton, and it's last decision, handed down
on Monday, is of far-reacbing impor-
lance. The case arose over the dis
charge at Covington, KY, of o. B. Cop
page, a fireman on the Louisville &
Nashville Railroad. William Adair dis
charged Coppage because of his mem
bership in the Order of Locomotive
F'iremen.s Adair was arrested, and
brought to trial before United States
Judge Cochran and fined 500. The
railroad carried the case to the SUI
preme Court, which has decided that
the law is unconstitutional. The de-
cision was rendered by Associate JUS
tice John NJ. Harlan and cOncurred in
by the Chief Justice and Associate JUS
tees White, Peckham, Brewer and Day.
| six altogether. Associate Justices Nc
Kenna and Holmes dissented, but JUS
tice Moody took no part, since the case
arose under his administration as At
torney- General. The gist Of the deci-
sion is as follows:
The right of the employe to quit the
| service of his employer, for whatever
reasons, is the same as the right of the
employer, for whatever reasons, 20 dis
pense with the service of such employe
1t was the legal right of Adair, how
ever unwise such a course might have
been, to discharge Coppage, because OF
his being member of a labor organ
ization, as it was the legal right of Cop
page. if he saw fit to do so, to quit the
service, because the defendant employs
those who were not members of some
labor organization.
The above will commend itself to
most people as being sound common
sense as well as good law. While it was
impolitic, unjust and probably a perse-
cution for Adair to discharge Coppage
for the reason assigned, yet this is a
matter in which the law cannot and
should not interfere. Every day in
every town men are being discharged
wrongfully, cruelty, unjustly, but in a
way that, like many other injustices, is
! outside the domain of law. The law
cannot make any man employ another
man. That is a matter that must b..
Judgment and by the same reasoning
the law cannot and should not prevent
that man from discharging another
man. This must be also within the
employers judgment and discretion, or
we would have business fettered by
rules that would speedily stif1e all en-
terprise The freedom of hiring and
discharging Is, as the court says. like
the freedom of agreeing to work and
refusing to work, things which are out
side of the province of law, since we
have abolished slavery, and the rule
must be the same between employers
and employees. No man can make an
other man employ him or continue his
| employment any more than the en-
ployer can compel the employe to work
for him
Justice Holiness dissent was on the
grounds that the court had stretched
the law Of contract unduly, and Con-
gress had a right to legislate to encour-
age labor organizations. Justice Nc
Kenna dissented on the ground that
the court t5bk too narrow views. 1t is
said that the President and Attorney
General Bonaparte were much disap-
| pointed at the decision, but we do not
see why, since it commends itself
strongly to the good sense of the coun-