The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-02-17

of nfs membership in labor organixa- tion. can De referred to the power of congress to regulate interstate com- merce, without regard to any question or personal liberty or right of property arising under the Fifth Amendment. rms suggestion can have no bearing in the present discussion unless the statute. in the particular just stated. E within the meaning of the constitu- ton regulation of commerce among the states. If 1t be not, then clearly the Government cannot invoke the commerce clause of the Constitution as sustaining the indictment against Adair.'' - The opinion says further:
 Manifefstiy, any rule prescribed for
 the conduct of interstate commerce. in order to be within the competency oi congress under its power to regu-
 late commerce among the States. must
 nave some real or substantial relation
 10 or connection with the commerce regulated. But what possible legal or logical connection is there between an
 employees membership in a labor or- sanization and the carrying on of in-
 terstate commerce? Such relation to labor organization cannot have, in
 itself and in the eye of the law, any bearing upon the commerce with which
 the employe is connected by his labor and services. Labor associations we assume. arc organized for the general purpose of improving or bettering the conditions and conserving the inter
 ests Of It's members as wage-earners; an object entirely legitimate 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 an inter-
 state carrier. will 1t must be assumed, faithfully perform his duty, whether
 he be a member or not a member of a labor organization. His fitness for
 the position in which he Iabors and
 his diligence in the discharge of his
 duties cannot in law or sound reason
 depend in any degree upon his being
 or not being a member of a labor or-
 ganization. It cannot be assumed that his fitness is assured, or his diligence
 increased, by such membership, or that
 he is less fit or less diligent because
 of his not being a member of such an organization. It Is the employe as
 man and not as a member of a labor
 organization who labors in the service of an interstate carrier. will 1t be said that the provision in question had its origin in the appreh ension on the part of Congress that if 1t did not show more consideration for members of la Dor organizations than for wage earners who were not members of
 such organizations, or if 1t did not insert in the statute some such pro- vision as the one here in question,
 members of labor. organizations would, by illegal or violent measures inter rppt or impair the Freedom of com merce among the States? We will not 1 indulge in. any such conjectures, nor make them. in whole or in part, the basic | of our decision. We could not. do so consistently with the respect due to a | coordinate department of the Govern
 ment. We could not do so without sn- I putting to Congress the purpose to &C., cord to one class of wage earners priv | ileges withheld from another class of | wage!earners engaged, 1t may be, in the same kind of labor and serving the | same employer. Nor will we assume, | in our consideration of this case, that ! members of labor organizations will in any considerable numbers resort to | illegal methods for Accomplishing any particular object they have in view | Looking alone at the words of the statute for the purpose of ascertalninx | it's scope and effect, and of determin- | sng it's validity, we hold that there is | no such connection between interstate commerce and membership in a labor organization as to authorize, Congress | to make 1t a crime against the United States for an agent of an interstate car | Tier to discharge an empioye because of such membership on his part If
 -