Newark leader. ([Newark, Ohio]) 1917-1946, 1918-05-31

1t is a matter of common knowledge,
of which all courts should take Judi
cial notice, that there is constant con-
flict in some sections of the industrial
world between capital and labor; no
matter what the cause, whether it be
bad leadership and advice upon the
part of labor, or bad leadership and
advice on the part of capital, or both.
Those conflicts are of such frequent
occurrence and at times so serious in
their nature as to shake the very
foundation of popular government.
We cannot forget the Homestead
strike of 1892; the Chicago Railroad
strike of 1894; the great anthracite
coal strike of 1902; the Colorado Fuel
and Iron strike of 1914, and many
others might be named, as showing
how the stability and security of the
very foundations of government are
seriously menaced.
Can it be said that a state legis-
lature having these industrial condi-
tions in mind might not legislate in a
manner to reduce or minimize the
conflict between capital organized on
Vic O1lS SldC anu lclOOI OlL
the other by denying to either the
right to destroy the other? Indeed,
what can be more important than do
mestic peace and safety?
The fathers so recognized it in the
preamble of the federal constitution,
in which they announced that one of
the great purposes of government
was "to insure domestic tranquility
and evidently the legislature of Kan
sas, as we'll as Ohio, whose motives
cannot be questioned in the enact
ment of this legislation, may have
their acts fairly reconciled with this
high purpose Of preserving domestic
tranquility by preventing the exercise
of coercion by the employer upon the
employe.
Suppose the legislature of Kansas,
or of Ohio, had passed an act pro-
viding that mo employer by himself
or his agent shall cOerce any of his
employees into voting any ticket, or
for any officer that he desires to vote
for" or "that no employer by him.
self or his agent shall cOerce any en-
plOye into Joining or attending any
church or lodge" or providing that
"nO employer by himself or his agent
shall cOerce any emplOye into buying
at the cOmpany's store" would it be
seriously cOntended that such statutes
werein violation of the liberty d con-
tract, even as construed by those
courts that have seemed more eager
to protect property rights than per-
sOnal rights?
Again the opinion says:
"Can it be doubted that a labor
ORGANIZATIONS voluntary asSOcia-
ton of workingman-has the in
herent and constitutional right to
deny membership to any man who
will not agree that during such
membership he will not accept or
retain employment in company
with non-union men? Or that a
union men has the constitutional
right to decline preferred employ
ment unless the employer will
agree not to employ any nom
union men? (In all cases we re-
fer, of course, to agreements made
voluntarily, and without coercion
or duress, as between the parties.O
Again we see the insidious and
strained effort to get away from the
Coercion" of the statute.
The illustration is not appropos or
analogous. In order to be so you
must add the element of coercion.
You would then have an instance OF
where an employe was using coercion
to induce non-union man to join the
labor union or quit the employment.
You would then have the same coer-
cion by employe as is prohibited by
the statute to the employer. COer-
cion upon the part of one should be
as unlawful as coercion upon the part
of the other.
This coercion is in the nature of a
secondary boycott. Employers for
years have sought, and finally OBJ
tanned, the support of courts in en-
joining what is known as the "sec-
ondary boycott" upon business. In
effect, this is secondary boycott"
upon labor for it is directed not
against the individual employe but
against the labor union.
This opinion goes much farther,
and is much more drastic, than any
thing heretofore pronounced by a
court, or even demanded by the Ma
tional Association of Manufacturers,
of which John Kirby, ir., is president,
as appears from their fundamental
principals touching labor unions.
These planks are as follows:
81. Fair dealing is the funda-
mental and basic principle upon
which relations between employees
and employers should rest:
"2. The National Association of