The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-05-30
rIIE RAILROAD WAGE cur.


way employees, effective July l. Mr..
Jewell, spokesman for the men af-
fected, says they will not accept the
cut. The probability is that if they
do not accept the wages specified
somebody else will. About all they
can do in regard to the matter is to
strike.
| The right of the railro$ds them
selves TO make the cut arbitrarily
seems to have been well established
but they left the decision to a legally
constituted and presumably impartial
body of men The judgment of the
public Will be that the award should
be accepted by both sides. If the
matter had been left to the railroads
the cut probably would have gone
deeper.
Mr.. JewaelFs assertion that the new
wage scale viii not provide sum suf-
| ficient for the men to live on is made
apparently without due consideration
of the facts. A reduction in freight
rates has been ordered coincidentally
with the wage cut This viii tend to
reduce living costs, so that the rail-
road worker probably viii find him
self little il any worse off than he is
now.
The labor unions seem always to be
opposed to arbitration boards and
court processes when found to be not
in accord with their views. but entize-
ly willing to appeal to these agencies
when they cannot otherwise attain de-
sired ends. They have upheld the
boycott and denounced the injunction
in connection with labor disputes for
many years. yet we find them at times
appealing to the courts for relief
from the former and for the exercise
of the latter.
In 1SSSIthe supreme court Of the
United States first faced the question
of the boycott of a workman by fell
low-workmen- The members or the
Washington Musical assembly, a
branch of the Knights of Labor, com
bined to obstruct some feIIow-musi-
clans from pursuing their trade IN the
District OF Columbia by refusing to
work with them or for any employer
that employed them. The obstruc-
tionists were indicted They were de-
MED a trial by jury and appealed from
this denial to the United States su-
preme court, claiming that the Of
Tense with which they were charged
was an Infamous offense under the
provisions OF the constitution The
supreme court agreed with the con-
tention. and said:
'It is an offense OF a grave charac-
ter affecting the public at large, and
we are unable to hold that a person
charged with having committed it in
this district is not entitled to a jury
when put upon his trial"
Combinations against law or
against individuals" quoted the court,
are always dangerous to the public
peace and to public security That
which when done by one is a mere
civil offense assumes a formidable
or aggravated character when it is to
be effected by the powers of the COM
bination-' So the knights OF Labor
successfully persuaded the court to
declare that conspiracy was a heinous
offense and it is not recorded that the
American Federation of Labor, which
was then in existence. had any pro-
test to offer.
Here in Kansas we find Alexander
Howat appealing to the courts for an
injunction to prevent officials from
exercising further authority IN his di-
rection.
1t should not be overlooked that
twice the supreme court Of the United
States has had statutes before It which
challenged the liberty of the employer
to select his own employees. ana has
been forced by a logic which seems
unanswerable under our institutions,
to hold that the employer has the
constitutional right to select or reject
union or nOn-union men as he sees fit
In January, 1908, it considered an act
Of congress which made it Illegal for
railroad to discharge = man because
OF union membership. The court
found that the right to work and the
right to employ are both rights of lib
erty and of property and that the
statute in question was an unconsti-
tutionaI interference with those rights.
The right OF n person to sell his
labor upon such terms as he deems
proper" said the court, ais. in its es-
sence, the same as the right of the
purchaser of labor to prescribe the
conditions upon which he will accept
such labor from the person offering TO
sell it. So the right of the empIoye
to quit the service of the employer for
whatever reason, is the same as the
right Of the employer. for whatever
reason, to dispense with the services
of such emplcye."
==-
The assessors report shows that