The Topeka state journal., 1922-12-22
THE RIGHT TO STRIKE.


Eight railway trainmen out in Los
Angeles have been convicted on a
charge of conspiracy to interfere with
interstate commerce and are awaiting
sentence. Their specific offense was
the tying up OF traffic on the desert
section of the Santa Fe railroad last
summer. Labor unionists doubtless
will regard the judgment as serious
interference by the government with
the right to strike.
No one will question the right of
an Individual to quit work, but many
acts which are perfectly legitimate for
the individual to do by himself be-
come a conspiracy when done in COM
bination with others. This is partic-
uIarlv true when these combined acts
are for the purpose of intfmidating
or coercing others to their disadvan-
tage. 1t is not duty on the part Of
an individual employe, unless under
contract, to remain at work simply
because his failure to work will effect
an injury to another, but the COM
bined effort OF a number of men to
strike, which is Intended to and which
will necessarily, work an injury to an
other for the purpose OF coercion or
intimidation, is fundamentally con-
spiracy.
4 strike is a concerted and simul-
taneous withdrawal from employment
of employees for the purpose of i'm
pressing some demand upon their
common employer. in accordance with
a previous determination either by
those who strike or by their represen-
tatives. There is, according to court
decisions, no such thing as a right to
strike.
The United States supreme court
has decided that "a combination
which has as it's object, or as. one of
it's means, or which conremplates in
reference with or the interruption or
obstruction of the United States mail.
is a conspiracy" This rule is laid
down as against combination of
railroad managers who undertake to
bring about the discharge OF employees
and thereby prevent the operation of
mail or interstate business.
If this principle be correct as ap-
piled to employers it should be equally
correct in its application 10 any other
foim of conspiracy that interrupts in
terstate business. If this jurisdiction
exists in the federal court upon the
matters OF interstate commerce. it is
equally under the jurisdiction of state
courts as applied to intrastate busi-
ness.
This principle is clearly outlined in
Il decision by the United States circuit
court of appeals. written by Mr.. JUS
tice Harlan, as follows:
TT is one thing for a single indi-
vidual, or for several individuals
each acting on his own responsibility
and not in cooperation with others,
to form the purpose of infIicting ac-
tuaI injury upon the property or
rights of others. It is quite a differ
-ent thing. in the eye of the law, for
many persons to combine or conspire
together with the intent, not simply
OF asserting their rights or of accom-
plishing lawful ends by peaceful
methods, but of employing their
united energies to injure others or
the public. An intent upon the part
of q single person to irjure the rights
of others or of the public is not in it
self a wrong of which the law will
take coSnizance, unless soERe injuri-
Gus act be done in execution of the
unlawful intent But a combination
OF two or more persons with such in
tent, and under circumstances which
give them, when so combined, a. power
to do an injury they would not pos
sess as individuals acting singly, has
always been recognized in itself as
wrongful and Illegal