The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1910-01-15
Judge Bailey Decides
Labor Injunction Case
Continued from Page -

Kart ~ idDOl unions cOu5uLuleu COLI
spiracy In some decisions the rights
Of the public, or rather, public policy,
intcrvened, and still in other cases the
reasoning is based almost solely upon
English cases that an act might be
wrong when done BY numbers and
right when done by one; in other
words. that equity would not enjoin
the right Of one man because his op-
pcnent would have fair and equal
chance to meet him, yet equity would
intervene where several persons act
jointly reasoning that force would inn
pose an unfair condition upon an adj
yersary who was compelled to meet
such condition 1t seems to me that
where matters of this kind have been
passed upon, the greater number Of
adjrdications have followed on these
lines The question then returns as
to whether or not such reasoning and
such logic is sound in principal and
wha is the force and effect of such
decisions, measured by our statutes?
So far as the question Of coercion, by
way OF fines imposed on members Of
labor unions for violating the bylaws
and constitution of the union | be-
lieve that recent authorities, at least
the better reasoning is that such acts
on the part of labor unions does not
constitute threats, coercion, or intimi-
dation. AS an individual l have a
right to sell my producing power to
whom | please and under such condi-
tions as please, my neighbor has the
same right to do the same thing; then
II my neighbor and agree among our
selses that we will dispose of our la
bon upon conditions upon which we
have agreed and If either OF us yio-
late this agreement or contract be-
tween. ourselves penalty shall be i'm
posed, my neighbor has deprived me
of nothing by reason OF such agree
ment and have taken nothing from
him, the matter is mutual, neither OF
us have used coercion or threats or
deprived the other Of any rights vest
ed in us, If labor organization con-
ssting of one hundred men vote
among themselves to adopt certain
laws. and imposing fines for the vio-
lation of such rules and bylaws, if they
nave agreed to- these provisions and
conditions in the bylaws and consti-
tut:on of suchiiorganization then it
occurs to me, and the recent authori
tics at least, hold to the conclusion.
that the mere imposition of a fine for
tie violation ofsthe rules and regula-
tions agreed and made is not such
coercion or intimidation on the part
OF such order as would justify the in
tervention of equity
AS to. the general principal Of the
boycott, as stated, unquestionably the
overwhelming number of adjudicated
cases hold to the proposition that the
boycott is illegal but think
on that question that the more
recent decisions. and there are a re-
spc, table number of them, take the
position that boycott-se separated from
force or yioence-is in itself not un-
lawful. Now then, the force and eff
feet Of the adiudicated cases meas
ured under our statutes; our statute
says that an agreement by two or
more persons to do or not to do GER
tain acts in the furtherance Of trade
disg ute, shall not be considered unlaw-
full il the same acts would be lawful
If done by one person.
1t is admitted there is no force or
violence shown by the record in
this case, unless the construc-
tive nature therefore it seems to me
that the line Of authorities which have
been controlling in a majority Of the
courts on the question of boycott have
been absolutely annulled or rendered
worthless by the statute which has
been put in force in this state It
has been questioned as to whether
Or rot this statute is constitutional. lf
am forced to say that argument can
be made. on a seemingly sound basis,
as to the unconstitutionality OF this
particular statute. That particular part
Of the statute which prevents and de-
orives courts of equity from issuing in
functions touching such matters has
beer particularly questioned, but as
see the facts presented in this case
It would be unnecessary at this time TO
pass upon that question. Our courts
have stated, the courts Of this state
have stated that If there is any doubt
as to the constitntionality Of any stat
ute, that doubt should be resolved in
fax or Of the constitutionality of the
act and the act permitted to stand.
rhe question has been raised that the