The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-01-26
COURT ANNULS
 KANSAS STATUTE ] AGAINST COERCION
Decision Has Effect of Annull-
 ing Connecticut Law.

Washington, Jan. 26.-The Kansas so-cal1ed coercion statute, making it unlawful for any individual or cor poration to coerce or influence any person to enter into an agreement not to join or remain a member of a la Dor organization as condition of such person securing or continuing in the employment of such individual or corporation, was annul1ed yesterday as uncopstitutional by the supreme court.
 The decision which was regarded as of the first importance in the labor world, was announced by Justice Pit ney.
 Strong dissenting opinions were given by Justices Holmes and Day. Justice Hughes concurred with Jus tice Day, leaving Chief Justice White and Justice McKenna and Vandevan- ter, Lamar and McReynolds concurr- ing with Justice Pitney.
 The decision was in the case of T. B. Coppage, a superintendent of the St. Louis 6 San Francisco Railway at Scott, Kas.. convicted of violating the law in threatening A. R. Hedge, a switchman, with discharge if he did not sign an agreement to withdraw from the switchman's union.
 stThe court intimates nothing in consistent with the right of individ- uals to join labor unions," said Jus tice Pitney. 'tNor is the legitimacy of such organizations questioned so long as they conform to the laws of the land as others are required to do. but the individual has no inherent right to join the union and still re- main in the employ of one who is unwilling to employ Q union man, any more than the same individual has a right to join the union without the consent of that organization.
 "Just as labor organizations have the inherent and constitutional right to deny membership to any man who will 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 has the constitutional right to decline proffered employment unless the em- ployer will agree not to employ any non-union men, so the employee shall refrain from affiliation with the un- ion during the term of the employ ment.
 There cannot be one rule of hb- erty for the labor organization or it's members, and a different and more restrictive rule for employers
 The contention of the dissenting justices is expr ressed, in the main, in this paragraph of their opinion:
 Could an employer not be forbid den from demanding agreements that an employee should not join the Ma tionaI Guard? Could not the state strike down agreements not to join a certain political party? Why not la bor unions, whatever members of this court may think of these unions?''
 Connecticut Law InvaIidated. Other laws, which according to Justice Day, are invaIidated by to- days opinion are those of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana. Mas sachusetts. Minnesota, New Hamp- shire, New Jersey, 5New York, Okla homa, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and Porto Rico.
 Justice Pitney in announcing the majority's opinion, made it clear that he did not consider actual coer- cfon'' as beyond the power of the states to prohibit. He declared that the decision was not only based on reason, but was supported by the de- cision of the court several years ago 1 in the Adair case, in which the fed eraI act of 1898, prohibiting an inter state railroad from dischargtng an employee because he belonged to a