The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-05-05
LABOR INTERESTS
SAY SUPREME COURT
FINDING SATISFIES
Prominent Legal Lights
Discuss Amendment TO
So Called Conspir-
acy Act.
Ex-Attorney General w. A.
King Presents Case for
State Labor Interests
Daniel Davenport Leads
Opposing Legal Talent.

Represented by former. attorney gen.
eral William A. King of Willimantic.
| the labor interests of the state. ap-
peared at the state capital yesterday
on the bill presented in behalf of Or
ganiZed labor amending the statutes
concerning intimidation and conspi-
| racy. When the bill was originally
heard the labor men were not repre-
scented by an attorney and there was
some question as to the exact nature
of the legislation sought.
The labor interests agreed to have
their case presented by an attorney at
later meeting. Yesterday Mr.. King
appeared and to the complete surprise
OF the interests arrayed against the
proposed amendment asked only that
the words of the Supreme court in de-
hning the much mOoted question be
added to the statute. Mr.. King made
it plain that those who sought the leg
islation wanted nothing more than the
Supreme court had already decided
was their right.
Mr.. King in his argument spoke in
part as follows:
Let me state what they do not ask.
They do not ask you to give them the
privilege of doing single act that
violates the law. They do not ask
preme court says are to-day theirs.
They do not want to threaten anyone,
to injure anyone, to do violence to any
one, and they do not ask you to legis-
late into their hands the power to do
those or kindred acts.
They say to you that this statute,
which they ask you to amend, is so
broad. so sweeping in it's terms, its
so limitless. that they honestly do not
know, from the words of the statute
themselves, what it embraces and what
it does not embrace. Under it's
phraseoIogy, they do not know what
their rights are-where they begin nor
where they end. They do not know,
from its words, the dividing line be-
tween the lawful and the unlawful
where the legal act shades into the
criminal deed.
Let me illustrate just one phase of
the uncertainty in the meaning of the
language of this statute. What con-
stitutes some of what are generally
referred to as the rights of labor?'
The Supreme Court of Connecticut
answers the question in the Stockford
case, in these words:
''Workmen may lawfully combine to
accomplish their withdrawal in a body
from the service of their employers, for
the purpose of obtaining an advance in
wages, a reduction of the hours of Ia
bor, or any other legitimate advan-
tage, even though they may know that
such action will necessarily cause in
Jury to the business of their employ
ers, provided such abandonment of
work is not in violation of any con-
tinuing contract, and is conducted in a
lawful manner and not under such cir
cumstances as to wantonly or malic-
iously infiict injury to person or prop
erty."
I am not discussing the righteous
ness, the economies, OF the wisdom OF
strikes of any nature; except to say,
that have no doubt that every man
I represent, today, will agree with you
that a strike, like war itself. is the
a. ,Ixr r1,<av1
everything else has failed, and then
under only the most extreme circum-
stances.
Now, bearing in mind what the court
said on this subject, turn to section
1926, which we ask you to amend.
The words of that statute punish every
person who uses any means to int1m-
idate any person to compel such per-
son. against his viii to do or abstain
from doing any act which such person
has a legal right to do
Is not every strike, however peace
ably conducted, one means of coercion
and intimidation, used to compel some
one to do something against his will?
Workmen strike, let us say, (still US
ing the language OF our court,) for AN
advance in wages and the strike is
perfectly orderly. Let us suppose the
wages are increased result. Was
the increase made probable as the re-
suit of the strike and if SO, was it not
made as the result of some means of
coercion?
It may of course be said that when
the statute says any means to in
timidate'' it means any means intend
ed to intimidate; or those words may
mean any means which incidentally
or as a result, intimidate. If the first
is the meaning, then the statute is in
accord with the Supreme court; if the
second meaning is included, then it is
very doubtful that the statute does
accord with the expressed views of
that court which have quoted to you.
At all events, whether it includes only
one or both of these meanings, the
language is uncertain and the mean
ing doubtful. We merely ask you to
make the meaning certain, and to
make it accord with what the court
declares that meaning is.
You have been asked many times to
clarity the meaning by inserting the
word "unlawfuP' before the word
gmeans'' so that it would be only
~unlawful means" of intimidation that
would be included. I assume that all
lawyers would probably agree that
such an amendment would neither