The Pioche record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1908-1925, 1915-01-30
union LABOR LAW DE-
CLARED V(|D BY COURT

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25.-Employers
union affiliations as condition of em-
ployment, the supreme court held today.
Justice Hughes and Holmes presented a
dissenting opinion, in which Justice Day
joined The opinion was made in suit
over the so-called Kansas coercion stat
ute, which it holds unconstitutional, and
according to justice Day, laws on like
lines in California, Colorado. Connecti-
cut. Indiana, Massachusetts,, Minnesota,
New Hampshire, NewJersey New York,
Oklahoma Oregon. Pennsylvania and Wi
consin, and in Porto Rico are invaldated
along with the aKnsas law
Under the Kansas statute it was un
lawful for any individual or corpora.
tion to coerce or influence any person
to enter into an agreement not to join
or remain a member of a labor organ
ization as a condition of securing ~
continuing employment. The case today
arose from the conviction of T. b.
Coppaga. division superintendent of
the Frisco railway system. for threat
enlHS A. IL. fieuSt, IL SWllSlihdh, VIZ
dismissal if he did not withdraw from
the Switchman's Union of North Amer
lea,
Majority opinion
The substance of the opinion of the
majority of the court was in this para
graph
Just as labor organizations have the
inherent and constitutional right to de-
nv membership to any man who will
nor agree that during such membership
he will not accept or retain employ
ment in company with non-union men,
and inst as a union m'n has t'e con
stitutonal right to decline proftereo
employment unless the employer VIII
agree not to employ anv non-uniHn man
so the employer has the constitutional
right o insist that the employe shar re-
frain from affiliation with the unl'S
during the torn of employment
The contention Of the dissenting JUS
tices is expressed in the main in TINS
paragraph Of their opinion;
could an employer not be forpiooeh
f.,,,, demanding agreements that an en-
Move should not JON the national guard
Could net the state strike down agree
ments not to join certain poi'ticai
party? Why not labor unions Whatever
members of this court may tnihN
of these unions?
Dissenting opinion
''Wherein is the right of the. employer
to insert this stipulation in the agree
memo any more sacred,' inquired JUS
tice Day in his dissenting opinion, ethan
his right to agree with another employ
er in the same to keep UP prices?
''He may think it quite as essential
to his financial independence and so
in truth it may be- if he alone is to be
considercHJ Butt it is too late to d.
nv that the legislative power reaches
such a case. 1t would be difficult to Sc
1T anv subject more intimately related
q good order and the security of -
community than that under consider
ation-whether one takes the view
that labor organizations are advantage
Gus or the reverse.
: 'Tt Is as much within the legis.4<
tive power as restraint of trade
''The law should be as Jealous to
protect the institutional liberty ot
the employee as it is to guard that OF
the employer" continued Justice Day
touching another point. 1.-THE princi
pal object of this statute is to pro7
tect the liberty of the citizen to make
such lawful affiliations of his choice
1t should not be necessary for the pro-
lection OF liberty to one citizen thai
he same right in another citizen should
be abridged or destroyed"