The wageworker. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1904-????, 1908-03-21

excitement and discussion among
members of labor unions. They should
cause excitement and discussion
among business men who prefer peace
rather than war, and they are worthy
of far more attention than has been
given to them by the newspapers
They are decisions that bark back
more than century, and are SEEMING
ly based upon the assumption that Ia
boring men have no rights, industrial
or political, that either courts or en-
ployers are bound to respect. Such de-
cisions cannot stand They have been
compared-or some of them have been
compared-with the Dred-Scott deci-
sion, for which fancy and other mem.
bers of the supreme court have been
so much abused.
A fair-minded man who reads the
it was strictly in accordance with law,
with morality of which the court had
nothing to do. But the recent deci-
sions, striking at the very heart of
the labor movement, are decisions that
either upset laws of Congress. or with
out warrant of law abolish rights
guaranteed by the constitution or
twist law of congress, enacted to
prevent oppression of the people by
monopolies, so as to make it apply to
labor unions.
There may or may not be signifi-
canoe in the fact that these deadly de-
cisions have been rendered in period
of Industrial depression, when almost
nine per cent of the union laborers of
the country are out of employment on
account of conditions that they had no
part in bringing about, and when such
decisions come with more crushing
force than if they had been rendered
during time of industrial activity.
The five decisions have been thus
tersely stated by Henry George, Jr., in
a series of articles entitled Give Dead
ly Blows at Labor: Government By
the Courts:
"First in sequence of effect was the
annuiInent Of the employers liability
act, known as the Act Of July II, 1906.
The decision was rendered January 6,
and only three of the nine justices
composing the United States Supreme
Court dissented.
"Second, on January 27, the Erdman
act, prohibiting employers engaged in
interstate commerce from dismissing
union men, was declared by the su-
preme Court to be unconstitutional; /;
six judges affirming, two dissenting,
and one, Mr.. Justice Moody, not par
ticpitating.
Third, February 8, in the Loewe or
Danbury halter case, unanimous
court declared the boycott conspir-
acy in restraint Of trade, subjecting
the boycotters to action for threefold
the DAMAGES sustained by the boycott
ted, and also to punishment under the
criminal features Of the Sherman anti
trust act, the maximum penalty Of
which is a fine of $4,000 and imprison-
ment for one year.
"Fourth in sequence Of effect, but
earlier than any of the others in date
occurring December II Iast-was an
order by MIR. Justice Gould in the Su-
preme Court of the District Of coIum-
bia, in the Bucks stove case, defining
boycott as conspiracy and temper
ariIy enjoining President Gompers and
many others named and unnamed,
from naming the Buck Stove company
in print 'or in any other manner in
connection with boycott.
"Fifth in this order, but first in date
occurring November 26, 19O7-was
an injunction issued in the United
States Circuit Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia by Mr.. JUS
tice Dayton; in response to an ex parte
statement and petition by the Hitch
man Coal and Coke company. The or
der enjoined John Mitchell, of the
United Mine Workers Of America, and
multitude of other named and un-
n AIMED persons from interfering 'in any
manner whatsoever, either by threats,
violence, intimidation, persuasion or
entreaty, with any person =;
who has contracted with and
is in the actual services Of the Hitch
man Coal and Coke company"
1t is not strange that these deci-
sions have made tremendous sensa-
ton in labor-union circles. 1t would
be strange if they had not. For if
they stand as the supreme law of the