New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1908-10-27
EXPOSURE OF GOMPERS
MR. T-4FJ0S L1BOR RECORD.
President Recommends Reading Of
G.. ". 4lger's lfrticIc.

washington, oct. 26.-When the reply OF Mr..
GomperS was shown TO him to-day Secretary
Loeb authorized the following statement:
Mr. Compers quotes from the Presidents cor
reSpnnience with him about George ". Ayers
book. "Moral Overstrain.' The President has
distributed copies of that book to judges, labor
leaders and others, and he now honestly wishes
,flat Mr.. Gompers would read this same Mr..
Ayers admirable magazine article on Taft and
LABOR printed last month. II is the most eff
iectlVe exposure of Mr.. Gompers's position that
has been produced, and ever since its appear
ance the President has been in close touch with
MT Aiger on the whole injunction matter
In his article in "McClure's Magazine for Sep
tember on Taft and Labor George ". Alger
reviews at length the decisions of Judge Taft
labor cases. These all. he says involved directly
and primarily the rights of the general public and
OF outsiders having part in any industrial quar-
rel who had been drawn into the contest between
capital and labor against their wills.
The first case considered by Mr. Alger was an
appeal 10 the Superior Court in Cincinnati, when
Judge Taft was on the bench there. in 1880. 1t
was case Of secondary boycott against the Moore
Lime Company by the BrIckayers' Union. in
which the firm had brought suit and recovered
H25o as damages. 1t shown that the union
sought to boycott Moore & Co. because the firm
would not refuse sell to J. B. Parker Brothers.
against whom strike had been declared. Judge
TAFT drew the distinction between the strike
against Parker Brothers and the boycott cf Moore
~ Co In his decision he said:
a O
tGF him except on better terms. at time when
ther withdrawal Will cause great loss 70 him. and
to come to their terms, they bona ide eXer
Using their lawful right to dispose Ct their labor
between Parker Brothers and their material
g peI~ee, Suth material men and their tlstoImers
with defendants wages or their ether terms Of
employment. There was no competition or pos
sible contractual relation between the plaintiffs
and defendants. where their interests we're natu-
rally opposed The right of the plaintiffs ,Aioore
u Co 10 sell their material was not ne which
n ITS exercise brought them into iesitimate con
members to dispose Of their labor they chcs-
defendants plaintiffs right Of trade TO
jure Parker Brothers and, upon failure Of tbs -
plaintiffs. Such effort cannot be in the bona fde
therefore. malicious. The immediate motive of de-
PENDANTS here was to show to the building world
what Punishment and disaster ne3essarilE followed
a defiance Of their demands The remote mctive
Of wishing II better tier condition by the power
so acquired Vii not: as We tliink "" nave SHOWN
make any legal justification for defendants acts
After Judge Taft was on the bench of the federal
court came before him in 1893 growing out
OF strike the Toledo & Ann Arbor Railroad.
in which effort made to stop other reads
from handling freight forwarded by that road. An
order was obtained from Judge Taft and sustained
enioininE the Pennsylvania and other companies
from refusing to handle freight from the Toledo
road. He wrote a long opinion. showing by the
interstate commerce act that II crfn,iua! Of
fence for the officers. agents employees Of the
connecting roads wifuly to refuse to receive and
transmit the freight Of the Toledo company. and
declaring that attempt of the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers compel the companies
commit this criminal offence by enforcing their
Rule p was unlawful This what he said OF
Rule p:
We have thus considered with some care the
criminal character Of Rule y and its enforcement
sists in determining the civil liabilities which grow
out them. hut also because We wish to make it
plain if " can. 70 the intelligent and generally
law-1hidng men who compose the brotherhood OF
Locomotive Engineers. a Wen as to their usually
conservative chief officer what cannot believe
they appreciate that. Notwithstanding their per
and other elevated and useful purposes tho exist
ence of Rule j under their organi" law makes the
Of their country
The result vas that the brotherhood agreed with
this criticism and removed Rule u from the list.
Mr. AIgcr also quotes from the views expressed
BY Judge Taft in address to an audience Of
vyorkingnnen in Cooper Union last winter the /
right strike. follows:
Now, what is the right Of the labor unions with
respect the strike? l know that there has been
times suggestion in the law that no strike can
be legal. deny this. Men have The night to leaN,'
the enrloy Of their employer IL body in order
impose on him as great an inc2nyenience, as pos
have the rghr in their labor unions u delegate to
the right n advance - aHcuInIiate ny Hoh'l i
tons Of ali members of the labor union fund
me sc The right to use persuasion with all
other employees who invited take their places
nor Of united action It is the business
police respect these rights with the same
tai In tie protection Of their property and business
In regard to the use Of iniunctions in labor dis
putes in the same Adde'S Judge Taft said:
Under the original federal judiciary act it was
permissible for the federal courts to ISSUE an
and of course & hearing. I think it would be en- !
TREY rgR IN 5S Glass empoTaTv restranins order
should Issue until after notice and a hearing