The Washington herald., 1908-01-28
ERDMANN LAW VOID
Employers Right to Dis
charge EmplOye Upheld.
DECISION OF SUPREME COURT
Labor Union Affiliations Not Matter
of Interstate Comm merce-''Ar Arbitrary
Interference with Liberty Of Con-
tract Not To BE Tolerated In Free
Land'-TwO Justices Dissent.

! The tenth section of the so-cslled Erd-
mann law, enacted by Congress in 1928,
/ forbidding railroads or other carriers en-
gagged in interstate commerce to discrimi-
nate against or 10 discharge employees
/ because of their membership in labor or
ganizations was yesterday declared by
! the Supreme Court 20 be "an arbitrary
interference with the liberty of contract
which no government can legally justify
/ in free land" and therefore void as
! eontravening the Constitution.
/ The decision is one of the most inn
/ portant announcements ever delivered by
/ the court on the rights Of employers and
employees The principles laid down are
/ far reaching i'm their effect on present
day labor conditions.
Test Case of Laws validity.
! The decision was rendered on test
case brought by the Louisville and Nash
vile Railroad Company
! William Adair. master mechanic Of the
road. for the purpose of attacking the
law. discharged o. b. Coppage a fireman
/ in the employ of the company. because he
belonged to the order of Locomotive Fire
men, That organization took the mat
ter up
| AdaiT was indicted under the Erdmann
law and convicted and fined 500 by the
Federal Court in Eastern Kentucky,
which upheld the eonstitutionality of the
act Carriers and their employees, the
court held being adjuncts Of interstate
commerce, the law was a proper regula-
tion therefor.
! The court denied the pleas Of the com
pany that the law was void because it in
Iterfered with the liberty Of contract and
was class legislation. which were the prin-
| cipal grounds upon which the appeal 10
the Supreme Court was prosecuted.
Tn the decision yesterday Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices Harlan, Brewer,
| White. PeCkEam. and Day COnCurred.
while Justices McKenna and Holmes dis
sented and Justice Moody took no part.
/ The opinion Of the court was delivered by
Justice Harlan.
Rights of Employer and Employed.
While the rights Of labor and property
guaranteed by the Constitution are sub
ject to such reasonable restraints as the
common good or the general welfare
might require the opinion proceeds, lit
comes not within the function Of govern
mental least in the absence OF contract
between the parties-to compel any per-
son in the course OF his business, and
against his will to accept or retain the
personal services Of another. or To com
pei any person against his Will 20 per-
form personal services for another
"The right Of a person to sell his labor
upon such terms as he deems proper is, IN
its essence, the same as the right of the
purchaser OF labor To prescribe the con-
dition upon which he will accept such
labor from the person offering to sell IT,
So the right of the employe 10 quit the
service Of the employer, for whatever Tea-
SON. is the same as the right Of the en-
plOyer for whatever reason to dispense
with the services Of such empiOye.
1T was the legal right of the defendant
Adair-however unwise such a course
might have been-to discharge Coppage
because Of his being member OF a labor
organization as il was the legal right of
Coppage. If he saw fit 10 do so-however
unwise such a course on his part might
have been-to quit the service in which
he was engaged because the defendant
employed those who were not members
Of some labor organization.
Not Justified in Free Land.
In all such particulars the employer
and the employe have equality Of rights
and any legislation that disturbs that
equality is an arbitrary interference with
the liberty of contract which no govern
ment can legally justify in free land
OF course. If the parties by contract fix
the period of service and prescribe the
conditions upon which the contract may
be terminated. such contract would con-
troll the rights Of the parties as between
themselves, and for any violation Of those
provisions the party wronged would have
his appropriate civil action.
And II may be-but upon thai suit we
express no opinion-that in the case of a
labor contract between an employer en-
gagged in interstate commerce and his en-
plOye Congress could make II a crime for
either party without sufficient or lust
excuse or notice. to disregard the terms
of such contract or 20 refuse to per-
form H.
In the absence, however, of a valid
contract between the parties controlling
their conduct toward each other and fix
ing a period of service it cannot be that
an employer is under any legal obligation
against his will to retain an employe in
his personal service any more than an en-
ploye can be compelled. against his will.
to remain in the personal service OF an
other
Justice Harlan stated that, while Con-
gress. to regulate interstate commerce.
has the power to prescribe rules bv
which such commerce must be governed.
yet those rules in order 10 be within the
competency Of Congress. must have some
real or substantial relation TO or connec-
tion with the commerce regulated.
UnfOnism, Not Interstate Commerce,
But what possible legal or logical con-
nection." he asked. SIS there between an
employees membership in a labor or
ganization and the carrying on of inter
state commerce? Such relation to a labor
organization cannot have, in itself. any
bearing upon the commerce with which
the employe is connected by his labor and
services.
Labor associations. we assume are or
ganzed for the general purpose Of i'm |
proving or lettering the conditions and |
conserving the interests of their members
as wage-earnel san object entirely legiti- |
mate and TO be commended rather than
condemned-but surely those associations /
as labor organizations have nothing to do |
with interstate commerce as such
'One who engages in the service of a |
carrier will. it must be assumed, faith /
fully perform his duty. whether he be a /
member or not a member OF a labor or |
s---------------.------------
mlSsssAS@6h /