The Butler County press. [volume] (Hamilton, Ohio) 1900-1946, 1916-06-02
AN OHIO JUDGES OPINION.

Jurist Declares That Labor Is Per-
sonaI and Individual to the Man.
Cannot Be Sold In the Market to the
Highest Bidder - Never Passes to
Ownership of Employer.
The labor sections Ill the Clayton
antitrust act, enacted into law Oct
15, 1914, secured to wage earners
necessary fundamental rights. The in
fuence of that victory has been far
reaching. The principle declared by
the congress of the United States and
approved by the president of the Unit
ed States, "that the labor power of a
human being is not commodity or ar
ticle OF commerce." has been making
its way into the minds of all the citi-
gems of the country.
The same policy that was followed
for the securement of protection under
federal law must be followed In the
various states In order that federal
protection may be supplemented by
state legislation, thus safeguarding the
Nights OF workers In all courts
The necessity for such campaigns In
all states was demonstrated short
time ago In Ohio. The grand jury of
Mahoning county brought in an indict-
ment that represented an effort to
place responsibility for the results of
their policies upon employers of
Youngstown whose actions resulted
In the revolt Of the steel workers. But
the effort Of the jury was i'll advised.
The verdict was a shock to every intel
hgent mind that appreciates the value
OF human life. That verdict said that
certain corporations, persons and indi-
viduals engaged in the manufacture,
sale and purchase of certain merchan-
disc, products and commodities to wit,
iron, steel and common or unskilled
labor'-were guilty of violations of the
antitrust law of the state.
This finding of the jury did not be-
come precedent. The workers of the
state and Of the nation were alert to
the danger They were not only aware
of their rights, aware of the principles
OF human freedom, but they were ag-
gressive In their own self defense. AS
q result Judge Anderson made deci-
sion which contained the following:
while the Indictment distinctly
charges In several places that labor is
commodity and AYERS that they were
Of Int 10 r-r,,l
combination because labor was com
modify, yet this cannot be true. When
we take the definition of trade as
used In this statute we find that it SIM
ply means the same as commodity
There is but little distinction between
the two words | am not prepared
now, and / trust | never shall be, to
declare that the labor of man is
commodity to be hawked in the market
and to be sold to the highest bidder
Labor is personal and individual to
the man. 1t is his; 1t is his own; no
one can sell 1t for him In this land of
ours, nor can any one take 1t from
him. IL We are going to regard it as
commodity the results of that would
be dreadful. 1t shears labor of all the
dignity that 1t ought to have 1t puts
the laboring man on the level with
slave: 1t takes away his manhood and
the respect that the community owes
and should give to labor. There was
time when labor was commodity, but
that was shot to pieces from 1851 to
1865, and / trust and hope, as every
other good, law abiding citizen hopes,
that 1t will never again be resurrected
In this country of ours. Capital de-
lpends upon labor as much as labor de-
pends upon capital. | cannot-and
am glad / cannot-class labor as
'conmodity,' and In this position I am
amply sustained by many decisions of
many courts.
'The statute Itself, it seems to me,
absolutely precludes labor from It's
terms. 1t is not dealing with wages or
labor; it makes no provision that it is
a violation of law for the mill owners
to combine to fix the price of labor
The lawmakers are endeavoring by
this act to prevent the citizens of Ohio
being injured by a combination that
might fix prices of goods and merchan-
disc and products sold in the market
That is the object of the statute and
nothing else. Then, again, what would
be the result II it were held that labor
comes within this statute? Every La
Dor union throughout the state would
be violating the law at every meeting
when they are endeavoring to protect
one another as to their wageN, and all
OF their acts would be criminal Our
courts have held up to the very highest
court In the land that labor unions are
legal, and In fact some courts go SO
far as to hold they are commendable
and that men should combine to help
one another In the struggle of life.
think that such organizations are COM
mendable, but yet this would make
them criminal Again, 1t would be
criminal act when the mill owners
agree to pay SO much per ton for iron
TO their laborers, because that would
be combination to fix wages, and
when they meet for the purpose of adj
justing the scale, one combination OF
laboring men and the other c0mbina-
ton Of mill owners, they are engaged
IN a criminal act, II this statute ap-
MI