Newark leader. ([Newark, Ohio]) 1917-1946, 1918-05-31
JUGDE WANAMAKER'S
DISSENTING OPINION
IN SUPREME COURT

some act which is required of him
by another; as, to coerce a man to
sign to contract; to coerce Obedl-
ence. In this sense (Which is now
the prevailing one), coerce differs
but little from compel, and yet
there is distinction between them.
Coercion is usually accomplished by
indirect means, as threats and in
timidation, physical force being
more rarely employed in coercing."
If we may restore the word 'coerce'
to the statute, as the legislature en-
acted it, embracing its most atrocius,
as we'll as it's mildest form (for courts
have no right to make laws or to
make constitutions, let US proceed
to apply the fore going constitutional
test.
The statute prohibits coercion by
the employer upon the. employee in
reference to the Iatter's lawful labor
organization. If such prohibition by
the statute is unconstitutional it must
be because the constitution clearly
permits or protects such coercion.
Does anybody believe it? Was it
the purpose of the 18th Amendment
to protect coercion or to prevent CO.
ercion?
The 18th Amendment to the Fed
eral Constitution was adopted in 1865.
Its purpose and scope are reasonably
clear, to-Wit, to abolish slavery or in
voluntary servitude, to fully emanc1-
pate the colored population of the
nation.
Slavery, as defined by Webster, is
"The state of entire subjection of one
person to the will of another"
1t soon became quite evident to the
Congress of the United States and
the legislatures of the several states
that Notwithstanding the 18th Amend
ment abolished slavery, the states
might still by a policy of hostile or
unfriendly legislation subject the
colored race to many of their infrm-
tiles under slavery, and, therefore,
the 14th Amendment was adopted in
1868 in order to provide and protect
against any such unfair and unjust
legislation as might deprive any
person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law" or "deny
to any person within it's jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws"
If it had not been for the provi-
sions of this 18th Amendment the 18th
Amendment would have been merely
so many high-sounding words on
liberty.
While the 18th Amendment abolish
ed the "entire subjectiOn of one per-
son to the will of another, it was the
paramount purpose of the 14th
amendment to prevent any partial
"subjectiOn of one person to the will
of another, by state enactments.
How can it be claimed seriously
that there is lodged anywhere in this
14th Amendment any authority or
power to permit or protect any sub
lection of one person, such as an ems
plOyee to the will of another, such as
an employer?
In short, the whole spirit and pur-
pose of the Amendment is to prevent
"subjectiOn", Coercion, intimidation
and the like in any degree or in any
form whatsoever.
If this constitutional test be sound,
it would seem to bring about con-
clusion of the whole matter in favor
of the constitutionality of the statute.
Otherwise, you have this absurdity,
CndC llDeTIy OI cOnCfdcC on Cne part
of the employer gives him liberty to
coerce' as against the employe; a
monstrous doctrine in any land of
liberty.
Instead of clear conflict, there
fore, between the state statute and
the 14th Amendment it conclusively
appears that there is clear concord
and that the statute was but carry
ing out of the great purposes of anti