The citizen-Republican. (Scotland, Bon Homme County, S.D.) 1???-19??, 1915-01-28
COERCION UPHELD
BY HIGHEST COURT
Supreme Justice Rules En-
p|oyer May Impose Condition
That EmpIoye Quit Union
or His Job.

Washington, Jan. 26.-The Kansas
so-called coercion statute, making it
unlawful for any individual or
alton to coerce or influence any per-
son to enter into an agreement not to
Join or remain a member of a labor
organization as a condition of such
employment of such individual or cor
poration was today annulled as I'M
constitutional by the supreme court.
The decision was regarded as of the
first Importance in the labor world,
and was announced by Justice Pitney.
Strong dissenting opinions were given
by Justice Holmes and Justice Day.
Justice Hughes concurred with Justice
Day, leaving Chief Justice White and
Justices McKenna, Lamar, V~andevan-
ter and McReynolds concurring with
Justice Pitney.
The decision was in the case of T. b.
Coppage, a superintendent of tho st.
Louis & San Francisco railway, at
Fort Scott, Kan, 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 ~Switchmen's union.
Right to Organize.
"The court intimates nothing incon-
! sistent with the right of individuals to
| join labor unions" said Justice Pitney
| Nor is the legitimacy of such organi-
, cations questioned so long as they on
: form 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 remain in the employ of one
who is unwilling to employ a union
| man, any more than the same individ-
ual a a right to join the unioa with
| out the consent of that organization.
Just as labor organizations LAY the
! inherent and constitutional right tt
| deny membership to any man who vii
| not agree that during such membership
he will not accept or retain employment
in company with %nonunion men, anC
Just as a union man, has the COnstitu
tional right to decline proffered employ
men unless the employer will agree no
to employ any nonunion men, so thu
| employee shall refrain from affiliatins
| with the union during the term of thu
| employment.
One Rule of Liberty.
There cannot be one rule of libert,
for the labor organization or its mem
bers, and q different ana more restric
tive rule for employers.
The employees liberty of making con
tracts does not include a liberty to pro
cure employment from an unwillin:
employer or without a fair understand
ing. Nor may the employers be fore
ClOS6u ny leS1SidtlO1 from eASlClSLus
the same freedom of a choice that i
accorded to the employe.
TIC ask a man to agree in advanc
to refrain from affiliation with tn,
union while retaining a certain posi-
ton of employment is not to ask hin
to give up my part of his constitu
tional freedom. He is free to declin,
the employment on those terms, jus
as the employer may decline to offe
employment on any other for it take
two to make Il bargain. And haNins
accepted employment on those terms
the man is still free to join the union
when the period of employment ex
pires; or, if employed at will, then d
any time upon simply quitting the EN-
ployment. And, if bound by his owl
agreement to refrain from joining tn
union q stated period of employment
he is in no different situation from tina
which is necessarily incident to con
tracts in general.
Justice Day Dissents.
For constitutional freedom of con
tract does mo- mean that a party is t
be as free after making the contrac
as before; he is not free to break
without accountability. Freedom c
contract in the very oature of tn
thing can be enjoyed only by being eX
ercised and each particular exercis
of it involves making an engagement
which. if fulfilled, prevented for tn