The sun., 1908-03-26

unless that railroad company Noulu
accede 10 the demands Of DEBs and
PBELAN that Il should not handle the
Pullman cars until the Pullman COM
pany had made Its peace with the labor
union. The Cincinnati Railroad Com
pany filed bill to restrain this secondary
boycott, and its lawfulness was passed
upon by the Circuit Court Of the United
States and the whole subject was illumi-
mated by an opinion Of the then Circuit
Judge, the Hon. WILLIAM H. TAFT. We
can do 10 better than quote his words;
but the combination was unlawful without
respect TO the contract feature. II was boycott.
The employees Of the railway companies had no
grievance against their employers Handling and
hauling Pullman cars did not render their services
any more burdenSome. They had no complaint
againit the use of Pullman cars a. cars. They
came into no natural relation with PULLMAN In
handling the cars. He paid them no wages. He
did not regulate their hours or In any way deter
mine their services. simply to injure him in his
business they were melted and encouraged TO >om'
pei the railway companies 10 withdraw custom from
him by threats OF quitting their service, and sctu-
ally quitting their service This inflicted an injury
on the companies that was very great, and II was
unlawful because II was without lawful excuse.
All the employees had the night to quit their em'
ployment. but they had no right 10 combine 70 quit
in order thereby 10 compel their employer 10 with
draw from a mutually profitable relation with
third person for the purpose Of njuring tha, third
person when the relation thus sought TO be broken
had no effect whatever on the character or reward
Of their service. II is the motive for quitting and
the end sought thereby that make the injury In
flotsd unlawful. and the combination by which II
10 effected an unlawful conspiracy. The distinction
between an ordinary lawful and peaeeable strike
entered upon 70 obtain concessions in the terms
Of the strikers employment and a boycott Is not
. fAnelful one. or one which needs the power Of
hne distinction TO determine which Is which.
Every laborinE man recognizes the one or the other
as quickly as the lawyer or the Judge"
When Mr.. GoMPRRs inserted in the
proposed new antitrust law this labor
section as the price Of his partial sup
port, we venture the guess that either
he or his advisers had this case in mind,
for the thing sought TO be made lawful
30 far as the new legislation goes is not
the strike, but the strike for any cause,
the strike which is a means TO an unlaw-
| full end, the strike which has no legitimate
connection with the conditions Of EN-
ployment or the relations between the
employer and the employee. Should this
section be enacted, the law as thus
expounded by Circuit Judge TAFT would
be nullihed, so far as any Federal legis-
lation could nullify It. In the case re-
ferred to, Judge TAFT expressly held
hat the Sherman antitrust law did
apply TO a combination TO incite a strike
for such a purpose, and the attempt to
legalize such q combination, without
respect 10 It's cause or purpose, is step
backward of grave importance.
Still more insidious is the attempt TO
confer the right upon employees TO COM
bine "for the purpose OF pedcedbIy OBJ
taining from employers satisfactory
terms for their labor or satisfactory COW
ditions Of employment.
We invite the attention Of Congress
and the President TO the significance Of
the word "peaceable. II it is to be
construed as synonymous with lawful
no reasonable objection can be made,
for no one has ever disputed the right
Of either employers or employees to COM
bine for the purpose Of lawfully attaining
their legitimate ends. But in determin-
ing labor controversies the word peace
able" has been construed by the courts
as the antithesis Of physical force
The effect Of the proposed amendment
OF the Sherman antitrust law is TO give
to employees an unlimited power to
combine in order to compel their en-
ployers to accede TO their demands, pro-
vided that the means be "peaceable. I"
Should Congress enact the proposed law
of which fortunately there is little
prospect-the courts will be compelled
TO construe the meaning Of the word
"peaceable. 1t will then be contended
that the section was intended to give
sOme benefit TO trade unions which lhey
did not have under the Sherman anti
trust law, and that this benefit was Sc
cured by permitting them TO combine,
provided that they avoided physical vio-
lence. Should this construction be
adopted the boycott would be legalized
so far as the Sherman antitrust law is
concerned; for, while the boycott is as
oppressive and tyrannical as the worst
form OF mob violence, and is far more
insidious and dangerous to the public
interests, it nevertheless is not marked
by physical force. When Mr.. GoMPERs
and his associates placed an embargo on
the hats Of the Danbury manufacturer
and threatened to ruin every retail dealer
who ventured to buy a Loewe hat, by
making his product unstable, no physi-
cal violence was employed 1t was a
combination 10 obtain Interior ends by
means which were literally 'peaceable, >
but were none the less unlawful
The proposed law, therefore, il en-
acted, might nullify the decisions OF
Judge TAFT and OF tine Supreme Court
IN the Debs case, for it would make eI-
isting Federal law inapploable TO this
class OF boycotts, where there is no ele-
| n - -.