The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1908-08-10
A RETROACTIVE DECISION.

Federal Judge Hanford at Seattle, in
issuing an injunction against long
Shoremen's union, uttered dicta that
seem to indicate strong judicial pre-
judice against labor unions in general.
1t has come to be not only rule of
law but a doctrine of reason and COM
mon sense accepted by all reasonable
men, that unions are legitimate and
that strikes are legitimate, but that a
labor union on strike must not COM
nit any acts of violence against person
or property and must not forcibly pre-
vent non union men from taking their
places. They may establish peaceable
pickets. they may use all moral sua-
sion possible. they may reason with
other workingmen; but they must not
use any force or indulge in any vio
lence. These points are now generally
agreed upon.
But Judge Hanford in granting this
injunction is reported as saying: "The
facts are to be judged by what we all
know in respect to the usual course
when a strike is ordered by a labor
union" He goes on to say that unions
theoretically meaning all uniCfs invar-
iably-"not only require their members
to cease work but to prevent others
from working" and he characterizes
this as union despotism."
But according to many decisions, and
according to Mr.. Taft himself in his
, acceptance speech, labor unions have
the right to seek to prevent others
from working, providing they do so
by argument, by entreaty, not by force
or threats. Judge Hanford assumes,
however, that unions always resort to
unlawful means. He enunciated the
strange, new doctrine that the facts
in a given case were to be judged not
by what actually occurred in this case,
but by 1.-The usual course" of labor
unions. He has read or heard that labor
unions in this country and particularly
in England resort to unlawful intimi-
datiOn. therefore this union must have
done so, or will do so, and there is no
need of inquiring into the fact whether
1t did or will do so or not. This is the
clear inference of his language, as
reported.
1.-The system'-of labor unions-"is in
compatible with the declaration of in
dependence and the laws of the United
States" Organized violence or intim-
idation by threats of violence il I'M
doubtedly incompatible with the de-
claration and the laws. but unions and
strikes are not; and it is not fair or
just or reasonable to assume that all
unions on all occasions act unlawful
" and are organized for that purpose.
Boiled down to its essence, Judge Han
ford holds that a labor union has no
right TO exist. that its very existence
is unlawful. We think there are few
judges who will now maintain this po-
Sition
But if labor unions are unlawful and
incompatible" what are the combines
of great capitalists? What are the
trusts? What are the groups de-
scribed by Senator LaFollette that
seek to control and largely do control
the output. distribution and price of
most of the necessaries of life? They,
we suppose, it is to be inferred, are
very benevolent and patriotic organi-
cations. They, it is presumed, are en-
tirely compatible" with the declara-
ton. the square DEAL" and the doc
trine of equal rights. If a lot of
workingmen organize for self-protec-
ton it is anarchy: but when the great
capitalists and employers of labor and
monopolists combine, it is legitimate
and laudable.