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

general way practical betterment OF
working conditions. The wOrkingman
claimed for himself the clear benefits
of the law and now demands for the
preservation of those benefits the
"equal protection of the law" Shall
it be denied him? Shall labor and
capital be placed on an equal footing
before the law and by the law as to
the right to organize if they see fit
so to do?
Labor unions, lodges, associations,
no matter under what name, are out
laws today under the COppage case,
unless they have the consent of the
employer. What | mean is that any
employer by the exercise of his power
under the sO-called right of liberty
of contract may dissolve and destroy
any labor union by the Withholding
of employment from them in dis
charging by coercion those who now
are, or hereafter may become, men,
bers of such lawful labor Organiza-
tiOns.
The employer is to have the right
to organize without the consent of
his wOrkmen, but the wOrkmen are
not to enjoy the same right of Organi-
zatiOn unless they secure the consent
of the employer. Is that equal pro-
lection of the law?
Abraham Lincoln once said some
thing about capital and labor, and it
may not be amiss to quote him. In
his first message to congress on July
A, 1861, he wrote these immortal
words:
Labor is prior to and indie
pendent of capital. Capital is only
the fruit of labor, and could never
have existed if labor had not first
existed Labor is the superior of
capital, and deserves much the
higher consideration. Capital has
it's rights, which are as worthy of
protection as any other rights.
Nor is it denied that theresis, and
probably always will be, a relation
between labor and capital, produc-
ing mutual benefits"
But granting for the purpose of
this argument that labor is not supe-
rior to capital, it certainly should be
conceded that before the law it is the
equal of capital.
In this same message he refers also
to the leading object of government,
of which the judiciary is but a part,
the same as the legislative branch
and the executive branch:
"This is essentially a peoples
contest 1t is a struggle
for maintaining in the world that
form and substance of government
whose leading object is to elevate
the condition of men-to lift arti-
ficial weights from the shoulders;
to clear the paths of laudable pur-
suits for all; to afford all an un-
fettered start and fair chance in
the race of life Yielding to par
tisan and temporary departures
from necessity. This is the leading
object of the government for whose
existence we contend"
If the leading object" in all gov
ernment sis to elevate the condition
of men-to lift artificial weights
from the shoulders; to clear the paths
of laudable pursuits for all; to af-
ford all an unfettered start and fair
chance in the race of life" why
should the right of organization, the
right of mutual association, exchange
of ideas among those engaged in the
same line of employment, considera-
tiOn and discussion of improved con-
ditions for labor, why should these
things be denied to the workingman?
Why should capital and business,
the stronger and more Independent,
be allowed the privilege of Organiza-
tiOn, which it certainly should enjoy,
and then deny to labor, the weaker
and more dependent, the equal right
of organization? Is not such clearly
a violation of the provision of the
| fourteenth amendment providing for
equal protection of the laws?
Now, it must be remembered that
the statute uses the words "any law
full labor organization" Of course if
it be unlawful it should be treated
as the common enemy. But the Ian
guage of the statute is so broad that
it comprehends not only an interKa-
tional organization, state organiza-
ton, district, county or municipal or
ganization, but also includes an or
ganization of the workingmen limited
in it's membership to a single fac
tory, and if the doctrine of the Cop
page case shall prevail as the law,
workingmen in such single factory
have no right to organize for their
mutual benefit if the employer OBJ
jects.
Now, it is conceded on all sides,
both in the majority and minority
opinions in said Coppage case, that
the fourteenth amendment does not
in anywise limit the police power of
the several states as enjoyed and
exercised prior to the adoption Of
the fourteenth amendment, providing
always that such power shall not be
exercised arbitrarily and capriciously,
and Justice Pitney speaking for the
majority uses this language:
"We do not mean to say, there
fore, that state may not properly
exert it's police power to prevent
coercion on the part of employers
towards employees, or vice versa"
But the majority opinion most
clearly holds that in enacting the
Kansas statute, the general assembly
acted arbitrarily and caricously and
without any reference to public
health, safety, morals or general well
fare. This appears from the opinion
as follows:
Laying aside, therefore, as i'm
material for present purposes. so