The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1922-02-04
A DIsHEARTEN1Nq DECISION

The decision Of the Minnesota Su-
prcmc court in the Minneapolis injunc.
ton case was disappointing to a good
many friends of that court who had
learned to repose confluence in it as
a palladium Of human liberty and Of
constitutional rights. The saving fea-
ture Of the decision is in the fact
that two Judges dissentcd, one Of them
our own Judge Dibell who has never
vet been known to wavcr between
Justice and the law on the one side
and expediency on the other.
When the prejudice of the moment
against union labor shall have been
overcome, and when men will see
and think more clearly then they seem
capable Of doing today the. opinion
expressed by Judge Dibell, which was
the law until last Friday; will be-
the law again.
The majority decision set aside for
MGR rulings Of the supreme court.
What thrill those five judges gave
to labor when they stated in the Du-
luth Board of Trade case that labor
was not commodity or an article of
commerce or utility. That thought,
from the last word in Minnesota law,
gave to the workers strong hope and
great confidence. It clinched the new
freedom for which they had been
struggling for ages. Labor is NOS a
commodity! It is not like iron and
coal and wood! 1t is a living thing!
IT. has being! 1t has soul! Oh, such
a declaration from our highest state
court was refreshing and invigorat-
ing.
1t isn't right to take folks to the
mountain-top and give them a glimpse
Of Canaan and then push them back
down the precipice up which they had
laboriously and diligently climbed.
And that is exactly what three judges
Ct the Minnesota court have done.
They declared labor was not a COM
modify when union labor was the
candy kid' in popular thought.
They have now put labor back with
iron and coal and wood, by one sweep
of their judicial hand, and it was
done at time when the press, bust
ness organizations and every force of
power and privilege have pooled their
strength against labor. Is the su.
premc court of this state to be a
weather-cock to be swung hither and
thither with each gust Of the. wind
II so there is little hope for progress
through an evolutionary process.
And what excuse did the three
judges give for taking the back-trail
from labor and freedom, to labor and
iron and coal and wood7 They want
ed to reconcile Minnesota law with
Federal law as recently interpreted by
the United States Supreme court
which was also done by a majority
of-one' decision. That is equivalent
to saying that state courts have nc
right to do independent thinking, and
that they should follow the wisdom
or folly Of the higher federal courts
If such is to be the custom there
are many cases that should not bt
heard by the state courts, and the
Minneapolis case is one Of them. But
the people expect more from judges
they elect than from judges who are
appointed for life, and who spent most
Of their legal careers in the service!
Of the same interests that now hav!
labor by the throat. The similar de
cis;on by the United States Supreme
court in the Arizona case might hav'
been expected from the five judge
who joined in it, just as the people
expected Judge Brandeis and his col
leagues of the minority to stand b,
the plain language Of the Clayton act
which lawyers hold will still be tn!
law despite one-man majority opinion
Of the court. What the plain folk
expected Of Brandeis they expected
Of Justices Brown, Holt and Quinn
ir Minnesota. It would have bee1
much better for the court had thi
last decision not been renderd.
The merits Of the Minneapolis cas-
are not the whole issue, but the pro
cess by which the labor men wer
restrained and sent to Jail will con
tinue to be the issue until the presen
power Of courts in. equity shall hav
been materially curtailed. The crimi
nal law, courts Of justice and jurie
are still operating. At least the
should be, and if the enemies of labo
wanted other than an added advar
4 tage over: the workers in this grea
y industrial conflict, they would be- COZ
y, 81 |-,i -