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

coercion and anti-subjection, provided
for in the 14th Amendment.
This would seem to be the undoubt-
ed end of this whole controversy and
all else would be superfuous, but
there are other observations pertinent
to the majority opinion that might
profitably be made.
A careful reading of the opinion of
the Supreme Court in the Coppage
case discloses a strange and signifi-
cant omission. The last clause of the
18th Amendment contains this Ian
guage: "Nor deny to any person
within it's jurisdiction the EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS"
This is as much part of the Amend
ment as the so-called "liberty of con-
tract, and each doubtless was in
tended to throw light upon the other,
each was intended to be explanatory
to and consistent with the other.
Throughout the opinion, however,
there is no discussion of this phase
of the amendment.
The judgment of the supreme court
of the United States in the Coppage
case is made to hang on the peg
Liberty of Contract"
This Liberty of Contract" theory
has been severely OverwOrked by our
courts. 1t has become decidedly
threadbare. Every time a state or
federal legislature undertakes to exer-
else the police power in preventing
gross abuses that jeOpardize life,
liberty, health and public safety gen.
mercenary interest affected thereby
| k0c 81 oI hok 0f
tract is being violated. This theory
has been invoked to protect almost
every infamy that can be put into the
form of contract, and it has chiefly
grown up by reason of the favor ex-
tended to it by our courts under the
mistaken view of the 14th Amend
ment. The cOlOred mans rights,
which were supposed to be the pri-
mary consideration of this Amend
ment, have been lost sight of and the
"sOulless" corporations seem to have
been the chief benefciaries.
1t may not be amiss in this opinion
to give a few of the primary con-
siderations that ought to prevail in
considering this liberty of contract as
applied between employer and en-
ployee.
One mans liberty ends where an
other mans liberty begins. 1t is alb
surd to say that one man shall have
the liberty to deny to another man
equal liberty. The distinction must all
the while be made that the liberty of
contract of one man must not extend
so far as to interfere or precent the
equal liberty of contract of the other
man, else we have not the equal pro-
lection of the law guaranteed by this
same 14th Amendment; at least no
mans liberty to contract should be
extended so far as to mean his liberty
to cOerce some other man into a con-
tract.
Now, what is this liberty of contract
guaranteed to the employer by the
constitution, which is abridged or
denied to him by the statute?
Under the statute he may still en-
ploy whom he will, when he will and
at any wage he will. He may dis
charge whom he will, when he will
and for any reason he will, or for no
reason at all, and in these respects
his powers are the same after the
enactment of the statute that they
were before the enactment of the
statute. What the employer is de-
manding, however, is the right to
abridge the employees liberty of
contract, to deny to the employee the
right to contract with his fellows by
forming and organizing lawful
labor union, and to deny the en-
ployee's right to contract with the
union as a member thereof, while he,
the employer, enjoys membership in
all sorts of business and Industrial
! associations presumably to his lawful
benefit.
Organization is the keynote of the
age. This is true not only in educa-
tional, religious and benevolent lines,
but especially is it true in every kind
and branch of business. Formerly
the individual man did the business
of the country. Today he does about
dollar does. The individual man has
given away, first to the simple part
nership, then to the joint stock COM
pany, corporation, holding company,
syndicates and the like, all of which
have brought about condition in the
business world that has practically
eliminated the individual man in In
dividual business and substituted
therefor a manager and superinten-
dent, or other officer or agent, with a
board of directors, stockholders and
millions of capital and credit back
of him.
This being the situation as to cap
ital and business, the workingman
years ago began to realize his weak
ness, inequality and dependence in
contracting with the employer for his
labor.
AS was said by the Supreme Court
of Kansas in considerating the Cop
page case:
'It is a matter of common know
ledge, of which legislatures and
courts should take cognizance, that
many individual laborers are un-
able to cope on an equal footing
with wealthy individual or corpo-
rate employers as to the terms of
employment; also that both en-
ployers and employees are in fact
separately associated in organiza-
tions for the purpose of advancing
their respective and, in certain re-
spects, conflicting interests. 1t
goes without saying that the indi-