The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-01-28
DECISION
AN ACT or CONGRESS DECLARED
 UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
United states Supreme Court Holds That Master Mechanic Has Right to Dfsckhrxe An Engineer Who
 He1onGs to Union.


 washfngton. Jan. 27--The constitu- tionality Of the act of Congress of June i, 1898. prohibiting railroad com panfes engaged in interstate commerce from discriminating against members of labor organizations in the matter of employment. was called into question by the case of William Adair VI. the United states. which was decided by the Supreme Court of the United states today favorable to Adair. The opinion was by Justice Harlan and held the law to be repugnant to the Con- stitution.
 The court held that Adair, as mas ter mechanic of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, had q right to discharge an employe because he was a member of a labor organiza- tion just as 1t was the employees right to quit such employment because of his membership in such organization.
 Such a course, the decision added. might be unwfse, but, regarded as a mere matter of right, there could be no doubt. Congress could not, under the Consultation, authorize 8 viola tion of contracts under the gufse of protecting interstate commerce.
 Justice McKenna delivered dissent ing opinion favorable to the law, in which he said the courts decision pro- ceeds along very narrow lines.
 The case came to the Supreme Court on d writ of error, from the United states District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Adair is the mas ter mechanic of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, and he was proceeded against on the charge of threatening to discharge from the em- pioy of the company. locomotive en- eineer, Coppage, because the latter was a member of a labor union. The act of 1898, which was one of the re- suits of the great Chicago strike, was invoked for Coppage's protection and the district court fined Adair S100 The constitutionality of the act was stren- uousEy attacked In the district court by the railroad attorneys, and when the decision was announced, they prompt ly brought the case to the Supreme Court with the result that the decis- ion of the lower court was reversed.
 Tn his decision, Justice Harlan held it was Adairs right to serve his ern- pIoyer as best he could so long as he did nothing forbidden by the law as contrary to the public welfare.
 Supreme Court Justice Holmes also expressed the opinion that the law should be construed as constitutional. He thought that the right to make com tracts had been stretched to the limit in the courts decision in this case. That Congress had . right to 50 legts- late as to encourage labor organisa- tons was for suggestion of Justice Holmes.
 ssWhiie," said Justice Harlan in his opinion, +the rights of liberty and property guaranteed by the constitu- tion to every person with the 1urisdic- tion of the United States against de- privation without due process of law is subject to such reasonable restraint A welfare may require, It is not within the functions of government--at least In the absence of contract between the partfes---to compel any person in tho course of his busisess ana against his will to accept or retain the personal services of another or to compel any person. against his will. to perform personal services for another The right of c 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 conditions upon which he will accept such labor from the person offering to sell 1t. So the right of an employe to quit the service of the employer, for whatever reason. is the same az the right of the employer, for whatever reason, to dispense with the services of such employe. It was the legal right of the defendant, Adair, however, un- wise such a course might have been. to discharge Coppage because of his being a member of a labor ofganiza- ton. as it was the legal right of Cop page, if he saw fit to do so. however, unwige such a course on his part might have been, to quit the service in which he was engaged. because the de- fendant employed those who were not members of some labor organization. Tn all such particulars. the employer and the employe have equality of rights and any legislation that Iisturbs that equality Is an arbitrary interference with the liberty of contract which no government can legally justify in a