The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1912-07-05

j. H. Walters, general organizer fo
the Brotherhood Of Railway GARNER
was in the city this week. In converse
tion with representative of the Jour
nal Mr.. Walters gave an interesting &C
count of the celebrated legal fight know
as the "Crookston case" which recent
ended in victory for the carmen. MI
Walters bore prominent part in thi
| fight. He said:
"My return to Everett at this tim
has no particular significance. 1t is tn
custom in our organization to visit on
different local lodges as often as con
venient and as my business has brough
me to this vicinity l have stopped owe
at Everett. Since my visit to your cit,
last December the larger part of m.
time has been devoted to the controversy
between the Brotherhood of Railway
Carmen and the Great Northern rail
way. This trouble was the result of the
officials of the Great Northern railway
threatening, coercing and intimidatinl
members of our organization in an eff
fort to disrupt our organization. The
matter eliminated in the arrest of the
superintendent and master mechanic oi
the northern division of the Great North
ern railway at Crookston, MINI. The
matter finally reached the supreme court
of the state of Minnesota, where or
June the entire court handed down a
decision upholding every contention OF
the carmen.
"The result of the opposition of the
company has only tended to strengthen
our organization and added to our
numerical strength as we'll, SO that to-
day our organization is considerably
stronger than when the fight began
Prospects SO far as our organization is
concerned are brighter than for some
time past and although we have had
one quarter of our membership out on
strike for almost a year ON the Harri-
man, Illinois Central and NJ X. & T.
lines, we have maintained our 652 lodges
and $4,000 members and look forward
to rapid strides during the coming
year."
The decision of the supreme court
quotes at some length in the decision of
the supreme court of the U. S., in the
Adair case under the Erdman act and
shows that while that decision asserts
that an employer has the right to dis
criminate as to his employees, and to
hire whom he will, be he union or non
union, to go beyond this right to dis
criminate into the field of threatening
intimidating or coercing is criminal, and
that the statute as far as it applies to
acts of this nature is constitutional, thus
sustaining the contention made by the
carmen
In commenting on the question of
Coercion" the court says:
Theoretically the employer and EN-,
ploye are on an equality, SO that one is
free to employ and the other to accept
employment as he sees fit, but in prac-
tice it is to the employe very often a
matter of compulsion and not of free
choice. As rule his daily wage is
needed for the daily wants of himself
and family, and nothing is left for the
morrow. To sustain life he must needs
obtain or retain employment on what
ever terms it may be offered Under
such conditions his necessities may
easily be made use of as a means of
coercion. If an employer who knows
that his employe is in position where
he must retain the employment or
starve should then with threat of dis
missal from service coerce him to leave
an organization wherein the employee
found help and support and which was
in no way inimical to the interests of
the employer, we would all unhesitat-
ingly condemn the conduct of the EN-
ployer as moral wrong. We fail to
see wherein coercion under similar cir
cumstances may not also be legal
wrong and violation of said section
5079 r. L. 1905"