South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1915-01-26
HOLDS EMPLOYERS
CONTRACT RIGHTS CUT
Day and Holmes Dissent, Lat
ter Holding Present Law
Drafted to Promote Good Or
der of Society.


Jersey. Pennsylvania and eight other
states. providing criminal liability for
discrimination against any union
workman because he is a member Of
such an organization. are invalidated
by the decision OF the United States
supreme court Monday in the Coppage
~ Kansas coercion statute" case.
The decision holding the coercion
statute unconstitutional was rendered
by Justice Pitney. the Schief Justice;
Justices McKenna. Vandevanter and
McReynolds concurring.
Two strong dissenting opinions were
fled by Justice Day and Justice
Holmes. Justice Hughes concurring
with them.
RcVcrses Coppage Decision.
The decision overturns the convic-
ton of T. b. Coppage, superintendent
OF Frisco lines. on charges that he
dismissed a switchman named Hedges
1T Fort Scott. Kas.. in July, 1911, be-
cause the man refused to agree to
withdraw from his union.
Coppage in the case thought
against him under the Kansas. statute
was charged with having presented to
Hedges an agreement reading:
We, the undersigned, have agreed
To abide by your request. that is. 20
withdraw from the switchmens union
while in the service Of the Frisco
company"
Hedges Refuses tO Sign.
"a cd sic
fused to withdraw from the union.
whereupon the superintendent dis
charged him AS the result of pros
eCutiOn brought on these facts and an
der a statute of Kansas. Coppage was
found guilty and sentenced to pay a
fine with a prison term alternative.
Ia reversing the decision of the SUI
pre- NO court OF Kansas in which the
conviction of COppage under the state
law had been sustained. Justice Pitney
pascs the findings of the court upon
tae contention that the state law in
cf oct intcrferred with Coppage's con-
st4,dticnd right 10 enter into con-
tract.
DCprives Of Liberty of Contract.
The act, ne declares. "as the con-
struction given il by the state court
shows. is intended 10 deprive employ
ers Of part of their liberty of con
tract. TO the corresponding advantage
Of the employed and the upbuilding
IF the labor organization. But no at
tempt IS made or could reasonably be
made to sustain che purpose to
strengthen these voluntary organiza-
tiOns. any more than other voluntary
Il associations of persons as legitimate
object for the exercise OF the police
power. They Nare not public institu-
tions. charged by law with public or
governmental duties such as would
render the maintenance Of their mem
berShip a matter OF general concern
10 the public welfare. If they were.
a different question would be pre-
sented"
To the contentious advanced for
the state of Kansas that membership
in labor organization does not nee
essarily affect mans duty To his en-
ployer, that the employer has no
right 10y virtue of the relation 10 dom
mate the life nor 10 interfere with the
liberty OF the employee i'm matters that
do not lessen or deteriorate the ser
vice" and that statute implies that
labor unions are lawful and not
inimical 20 the rights of employers"
Employer Must Decide.
Justice Pitney makes this reply:
To this line Of argument il is suffi-
cient To say that IL cannot he judicial
Is declared that membership in such
/ AN organization has no relation to-
ff4s-44NNA uAAN AN MS EN- DlOA eE. ana
therefore II freedom of contract is
! 10 be preserved the employer must
he left at liberty 10 decide for him
self whether such membership 10y his
employe is consistent with the salts
factory performance of the duties OF
his employment
"Of course we do not intend 20 say
! nor 20 intimate anything inconsistent
!. with the right OF individuals 20 join
labor unions nor do we question the
i legitimacy Of such organizations So
long as they conform 10 the laws of
4 the land as others are required TO do.
Can't Work for NOn- Mon Man.
.Conceding the fun right OF the in
/ dividual 10 Join the union he has no
| inherent right TO do this and still re-
/ main in the employ OF one who is un-
willing to employ a union man. any
more than that same individual has
right 10 join the union without the
! consent Of that organization.
'sCan IL he doubted that a labor
! organization-a voluntary association
OF workingmen-has the inherent and
! constitutional right To deny mem ber-
! ship 20 any man who VIII not agree
that during such membership he viii
! not accept or retain employment i'm
! company with nom union men? or
/ that "a union man Bus the constitu-
! fional right 20 retain preferred en-
. ployment unless the employer Will
! agree not Ia employ any non-union
man
And can there DE one rule OF lib
| erty for union organization and its
members and q different and more re-
stricuve rule for employers"
Justice Day Di~scutS.
Justice Dav dissenting ARGUES that
/ the Kansas statute was drafted with
purpose OF promoting The same lib-
erty Of acrlon for employees il gives TO
employer and that n was an attempt
- fh. Irnne.e TerstefnfffVa