The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1908-06-22
THE RIGHT TO STRIKE
Placed In Jeopardy by the Su-
preme Court.
iISE LATEST BLOW Ar LABOR


lawfuI--Man's Freedom to Work or
Not to Work Abolished.
Whittier are we drifting? Where VIII
the process Of judicial legislation, Of ju-
dicial notification OK individual rights
(when the individuals happen to be
workmen associated for mutual protec-
tom, end in this grent democratic re-
publicl Is the Judiciary bound to de-
stroy, II It can, all the freedom labor
has won since the time when mere
combination to obtain wages was pun
ishable as conspiracy?
These are not idle, fanciful questions.
The supreme court OF the United States
has, we know, outlawed the peaceabIe
boycott and taken the logically and
officially Impossible position that free
and independent citizens may not with
hold their patronage or announce such
withholding from men they regard as
enemies, men without any claim what
ever to such patronage.
But the. outlawing or the peaceful,
rightful, noninvasiye boycott Ii not the
slast word Of American judges. The
supreme court Of Massachusetts, has
gone beyond that stage. In series Of
obscure, confused, scarcely Ineligible
decisions It has attempted to outlaw
even the sympathetic strike.
Now, II anything has for many dec
AIDES been considered settled and fun.
damental In this country and In Eng
land 1t is this. that man Or any num-
Der Of men may quit work for any rea-
son, whether good, bad or Indifferent
1t has also been deemed settled that
man who has struck is not under any
obligations to give his reasons for the
action to any person whatsoever, pri-
yate Or clothed with brief authority.
II ia not question Of the adyIsabfli-
fy or Misunderstanding of a strike. The
trades union organizations do not en-
courage sympathetic strikes; but. even
so, we viii not allow the right to strike
to be taken away from us.
Yet In these strange, bewildering,
chaotic times the supreme court Of a
state SO American" 50 proud Of its
traditions and principles, as Massachu-
sets, undertakes TO wipe out the right
to strike 'sympatheticallyl" The fact
ii scarcely conceivable. but unfortu-
nately there Is no doubt as 10 the drift
and intended result OF the decision IN
the Lynn Building Trades council case
recently rendered.
Quotations from the opinion OF the
court are given iii the press which
fully justify this Interpretation. The
court starts out by saying that 1T Ia
settled In this commonwealth that the
legality Of a strike depends upon the
purpose for which the employees /
strike" Ia other words. man may be
asked what bis motive was Ii striking,
and he is no longer free To work or not l
to work as be sees at. This Is contrary
TO the law and the decisions of other
great states and is about as reaction
airy and preposterous position as il
ID possible to assume
All this Ii 30 confused ais to be prac-
ticaIly unintelIigibIe: but, IL 1t means
anything, 1t means that where an indi-
vidual unionist asks his fellow uniou-
lists to unite with him IN demanding
justice or fair treatment OR even tho 4
observance by an employer of the
terms Of bis contract they may not in-
tercede in bis behalf or present bis
grievances and carry their support Of
his case to the point Of striking. When
they do that they become guilty of an
unlawful conspiracy
What are the grounds for this ex-
traoriinary yiew9 There can only be
these that anything in the nature Of
q sympathetic strike is unlawful, for
sympathetic strike does not further
common interests
We do not claim for moment that
strikes must further common utter
ests'' or that It is competent for any
one TO inquire into the reasons and
motives and objects Of strike. But il
we were to grant, FOR the sake Of ar
gument, the distinction made BY the
court there would still remain the
question what common interests are
aud Who'll to be the Judge Of The exist
ance or nonexistence OF common
is not the solidarity. the
strength, the permanence Of n union. an
example OF common interestsg7 May
not men agree to support one another
"a the principle that an injury to one
IS the concern of ali members Of a
Inion3 Is not the desire to prevent
injustice. discrimination, a
common INTEREST," What d sordid, ,
anti-social doctrine It Is that men may
strike TO secure, say, higher wages for
but not to stop the arbl-
.rary reduction Of the wages of one or
! few Of their fellow workmenl
we point out parentheticaIly thar the
attempt to outlaw sympathetic strikes
q support Of one or more members is
luite as futile as It is unwarrantable.
Men cannot be compelled to work
against their viii, and they cannot be
to give a reason for striking
ghen determined to do so But this
Ices not affect the law and the ethics !
II the question. The people Of Nassa-
.husetts should not permit the courts
o settle the law on this important
light for them finally and permanent
p The legislature can legalize the
itrike. whether direct or sympathetic.
y positive enactment. and the courts
sill. Of course, reflect the policy Of the
tate as determined by the lawmakers. III
Courts have nothing to do with mat
ers Of general policy, and no Amsri-
an state can afford to abolish OF limit
he freedom 10 work OF not to work