Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1915-01-26
EMPLOYERS MAY
DISCRIMINATE
AS To employees
Law Against Refusal to Hire
Men Because Members of
Labor Union Is Declared
Contrary to Constitution,

fsr NosHNs JoUsssI SPECIAL Ltaarn war
Washington, Jan. 25.-EmplOyer
may require employees TO renounce an
ION affiliations as a condition ~ EN-
ployment, the supreme court Of th'
United States held today Justices
Hughes and Holmes present ID dis
seHting opinion In which Justice Day
Joined. The decision was made Ia z
SUIT over the so-cslled Kansas cocr-
cion statute. which II holds unconsti-
/ tutional and, according to Justice Day,
laws on like lines IN California, Colo
rado. Connecticut, Indiana. Massachu-
seus, Minnesota, New Hampshire,
View Jersey. New York. Oklahoma,
| oregon, pennsylvania and Wisconsin,
and In Porto Isico are invaIidated
along with the Kansas law.
Under the Kansas statute il was I'M
lawful for any individual or corpora
ton to coerce or Influence any person
TO enter INTO an agreement not 10 join
or remain member Of n labor organ
izauon as condition of securing or
continuing employment. The case to-
day arose from the conviction Of 7. p.
Coppage division Superintendent OF
me frisco railway system for threat
ening a. II. Hedge. a switchmnn, with
dismissal II he did not Withdraw from
ne switchmen's union Of North
America
Rights Of Employers Defined.
The substance OF the opinion Of the
majority of the court was in this par
agraph
Just as labor organizations have
inherent and constitutional right to
deny membership TO any man who
VIII not agree that during such mem
bership he will not accept or retain
employment in company with non
union men, and just as a union man
mas the constitutional right to decline
proffered employment unless the en-
ployer viii agree not to employ any
hon-union man. so, the employer has
me constitutional right 10 insist that
me employe shall refrain from affn-
iatlon with the union during the term
OF employment
The contention OF the dissenting
justices Is expressed in the main. IN
this paragraph Of their opinion.
could an employer not be forbid
oen from demanding agreements that
an einpioNe should not join the nation
al guard Gould not the state strike
down agreements not 10 ioin a GER
tam political party2 WHY not labor
unions. whatever members OF this
court may think OF these unions ?"
Wherein II the right of the en-
ployer to insert this stipulation In the
a agreement any more sacred inquired
Justice Day In his dissenting opinion,
than his right 10 agree with other
employers IN the same trade TO keep
up prices?
lie may think II quite as essential
10 his financial independence and
50 IN ruth II may be, II he alone is
I" ne considered But II is too late
to deny that the legislative power
reaches such a case. II would be Diff
ticuit to select any subject more in
timately related TO good order and
the security of the community than
that under eonsideration-w whether
one takes the view that labor organ
i@auons are advantageous or the re-
verse.
1T is as much within the legisa-
tive power as restraint of trade.
The law should be as Jealous TO
protect the constitutional liberty of
the employe as 1t is TO guard that NJ
The employer continued Justice Day,
touching another point. THE princi-
pal object Of this statute Is to pro-
lect the liberty Of the citizen to make
such lawful affiliation as he may de-
sire, affiliations Of his choice. 1t
may not be necessary for the protec-
ion Of the liberty of one citizen. that |
he same right In another citizen |
should be abridged or destroyed
Justice Pitney. In Announcing the I
ralorlty's opinion. made II clear that /
ne did not consider actual coercion" |
As beyond the power af the state TO !
pronlhit' lie declared the decision
vas not only based on reason. but was
Imported by the decision of the court
ieveral years ago In the Adair case,
n which the federal act of 1898 pro-
liblting an interstate railroad from \
ilscharging an employe because he /
belonged to a union was annulled as
Justices Day and Hughes held that
mere was an element OF coercion In
he switchman's case which distin-
;uished the two cases, while Justice
Holmes was In favor of overruiing the
Ndair decision.