The morning journal-courier., 1908-06-25

THE MORNING J which were deemed of importance by counsel cover eight pages of the Fed cral Reports, The fact that the court deals with them in less than 10 pages is but an indication of the power of condensation and close statement for which Judge Tafts judicial work was notable
 The electric motor case in the same volume Is another admirable illustra- ton of this same power of condensa- tion. The learned judge reviews In chronological order, beginning with lS40 the story of the application of electricity to motor propulsion, and in the statement shows conclusively the limited scope of the lltlgated invention.
 The amount of research necessary to the determination of some of these cases is shown In the duplex printing press and harvesting machine cases, both In the 69th Federal Reporter, Judge Taft's decision in the first of these cases having since been cited P times and in the second case eight times.
 The decisions concerning stem wind Ing watches, electric smelters, furnace fuel feeders, metal rod coiers target throwing devices, live steam feed-wa- ter purifying or heating apparatus, hollow journaled reels, formation Of aluminium by. electrolysis, etc., show he-range ofTinqulry with. which he dealt.
 It may of course be said that many federal judges in the same period of time have dealt with as great variety of cases, many of which involved as great interests and as great complica- tion as those upon which Judge Taft passed, but I think 1t will be general ly agreed that in simplicity and clear ness of statement, and in the illustra- tion of the principles of patent law by specific instances, no one has sur passed him.
 Coming now to the labor causes one Is surprised to find that there is no lit- tie foundation for the criticism which has been made. A better way to put 1t would be that the opposition to his candidacy has put forward the fear of criticism rather than that actual crit icism has been made by labor unions.
 It ia true that his decisions were early, but the doctrines enunciated have now become so familiar that any one at all familiar with the state of law, either here or abroad, would not deem them open to animadversion. On the contrary, Judge Taft Is entitled to the same just, generous and discrim- mating praise which Mir. Mansfield, Ter eeerting the Massachusetts Feder- .ation of Labor, recently gave 10 the ccmts of Massachusetts in the hear ings concerning the increase of judicial salaries in this commonwealth. Mir. Mansfield said that, although tho great Interests represented by him had fault to fird with the substantive law and believed in some particulars il should be changed by legislative enactment, they had no fault to find with the ad- ministrauon of the low as 1t stands by the judges of this commonwealth; that tbey had been fair patient and tudici- GUS in its administrator.
 Take the earliest of these decisions, which by the way, was while Judge Taft was on the superior court of Ohio. in which he held that suit could be maintained for what might be called sympathetic strike. In that case Moores, the plaintiff. had no quarrel with the union. but he sold some goods to concern with which the union had difference and against which a strike had been declared. and boycott was ordered against him. No one questions this doctrine now. Judge Taft has repeatedly pointed out the right of unions to combine and to strike for the improvement of the con- ditions of labor, for higher wages and for other beneficial and legitimate purposes, but held that the strike or boycott must be against the person with whom the union had grievance, and not against an innocent third party.
 This was clearly not the Mogul steamship case, and the distinction then pointed out by Judge Taft has held good ever since.
 The supreme court of Massachu- setts has recently decided precisely the same thing in Pickett vs. Walsh. The doctrine is in effect that in fight ing with one man you shall not pun iah tl i,l ta tal, ., in the fight against your first antag- onist.
 The Toledo and Ann Arbor case de- cided in 1893, when Judge Taft was on the federal bench, Is to the same ef- feet. MT. Arthur, the chief of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, was not at liberty, he held, to order a strike against railroads connecting with the Toledo road to prevent them from handling Toledo's freight Rail- roads engaged in interstate commerce under the federal laws are not at lib- erty, and their employees remaining in their employment are not at liberty, and the general manager or president of union is not at liberty, to tie up the commerce of the country to help on a contest with which the strikers have no personal interest or concern, Judge Taft was throughout careful to point out, as he did in the Thomas case, 62d Federal Reporter, the full scope of the right of combination.
 Now, 1t may be conceded in the outset that the employees of the re- ceiver had the right to organize into or to join a labor union which should take joint action as to their terms of employment, It is of benefit to them unite In their common interest and for lawful purposes, They have labor to