South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1915-01-26

toward the good order and security of
society.
IF the state may not enact a stat
ute prohibiting discrimination on the
ground OF membership in a labor I'M
ion" he argues. lit cannot pass q law
prohibiting an employer from dis
charging an employee. because the
workman belongs to the national
guard"
Justice Day said in part:
The Importance of this decision
is emphasized by the fact that it re-
suits not only in inValidating the leg
islatiOn of Kansas. now before the
court, but necessarily DEGREES the
same fate to like legislation in other
states of the union California, Colo
RADIO, Connecticut. Indiana Massa-
chusetts. Minnesota, New Hampshire
New Jersey. New York, oklahoma,
oregon, Pennsylvania, Porto Rico
and Wisconsin,.
How Result il Attained
This far-reaching result is attained
because the statute is declared To be
an infraction of the constitutional
protection afforded under the 14th
ton. which declares that no person
shall be deprived of life. liberty or
property without due process of law.
The question involved is not: Shall
an employer have the right to dismiss
an employee" according to the justice,
for he says:
There is nothing in the statute
now under consideration which pre-
vents an employer from discharging
any one in his service at mis- will. The
question now presented, is. may an
employer as a condition of the pres
ent or future employment. require
an employee TO agree that he will not
exercise the privilege of becoming a
member of a union should he see lit
To do SO.
For Good OF society
The act (the Kansas statute) must
be taken as an attempt OF the legis-
lature To enact a statute which it
deemed necessary To the good order
and security Of society. 1t was in the
light OF this aVOwed purpose that the
act was interpreted by the supreme
court OF Kansas OF course IL the act
is necessarily arbitrary and therefore
unconstitutional. mere declaration of
good intent cannot save but ii must
be proved To have been passed by the
legislative branch OF the state govern
ment in good faith and for the pur-
pose OF reaching a desired end.
1t may be that an employer may
be OF the opinion that membership
OF his employees in the national guard.
ny enlistment in the militia of the
state may he detrimental TO his bust
ness. Can il be successfully contend
ed that the state may not in the pub
lie policy Would il be beyond
forego such enlistment IS against pub
lie pohcy2 ould not De beyond
legitimate exercise OF the police pow
er 20 provide that an emplOye should
not be required 10 asree. as condi-
zion OF employment to fOrego affilia-
ton with "A particular political party,
or the support OF "A particular candi-
date for Office? IL seems that these
questions answer themselves
should Guard Liberty of EnlnIoye.
or the Kansas statute he said:
II think that the act now under con-
sideration and kindred ones are in
tended 10 promote the same liberty
OF action for the employe as the en-
ployer enjoys. The law should be as
jealous in protecting the constitn-
tional liberty OF the employe as il IS To
guard that of the employer.
II therefore think that lie statute
of Kansas did not go beyond "A legiti
mate exercise of the police Dowe-