Newark leader. ([Newark, Ohio]) 1917-1946, 1925-09-04
LABOR POWER


The ownership of a free man is
vested in himself alone. The only
reason for the ownership Of bondmen
or slaves is the ownership of their
labor power by their masters. There
fore, it follows that if free mems
ownership Of themselves involves their
labor power. none but themselves are
owners Of their labor power. Hence,
it is essential that the product of a
free man is his own. If by choice or
by reason of his environment sells his
labor power to another and is paid a
wage in return therefor, this wage is
his own. To question or to attempt
TO destroy the principle enunciated in
wolves the entire structure Of civilized
society. The free mans ownership Of
himself and his labor power implies
that he may sell it to another or
withhold it; that he may with others
similarly situated sell their labor
power or withhold it; that no man
has even an implied property right "A
the labor Of another that free men
may sell their labor power under
stress Of their needs, or they may
withhold it to obtain more advantage
Gus returns. Any legislation or court
construction dealing with the subject
or organizations, corporations or
trusts which curtail or corner the
products of labor, can have no true
application to the association Of free
men in the disposition or withhold
ing of their labor power. The at
/ tempt to deny to free men, by injunc-
ton or other process, the right OF
association, the right to withhold
/ their labor power or to induce others
to withhold their labor power, wheth-
er these men be engaged in an indus
trial dispute with employers, or
whether they be other workmen who
have taken the places of those en-
gagged in the original dispute, is an
invasion Of mans ownership of him
self and OF his labor power, and is a
claim of some form Of property l1gLt
IN the Workmen who have taken the
places of the strikers, or men locked
out. If the ownership Of free men is
vested in them and in them alone,
they have not only the right to with
hold their labor power, but to induce
others to make common cause with
them, and to withhold theirs that the
greatest advantage may accrue to all.
1t further follows that if free men
may avail themselves Of the lawful
right Of withholding their labor pow
er, they have the right to Go all law
ful things III pursuit of that lawful
purpose. And neither court iniunc-
ton nor other processes have any
proper application to deny to free
men these lawful, constitutional, nat
ural and inherent rights. In the dis
position Of the wages returned from
the sale of labor power, man is also
his own free agent All things he
may lawfully buy, he may also law
fully abstain from buying. He may
purchase from Whomsoever he will. Of,
he may give his patronage to another
What he may do with his wages in
the form of bestOWing or withhold
ing his patronage, he may lawfully
agree with others to do. No corpor
atlon Or company has a vested inter
est IN the patronage Of a free man.
II this be true, and its truth cannot
be controverted upon any basis in law,
free men may bestOw their patronage
upon any one Or withhold it. or be-
stow 1t upon another. And this, too,
whether in the first instance the bus
mess concern is hostile or friendly. 1t
IS true for any good reason, and in
the last analysis, for no reason at all.
It is not a question as to whether we
like or dislike lockouts OF strikes, boy
colts or blacklists. The courts have
declared that lockOuts and the black
lists and all that pertain thereto are
not unlawful. 1t is difficult to un-
derstand, then, unless there is some
conception in, the courts of an en-
ployers property right in some form
N the laborer or the laborer's pa
tronage, how they stretch their au-
5hority, pervert the purpose of the
law and undertake by the injunction
process to outlaw either the strike or
the boycott. TO claim that what one
man may lawfully do, when done by
two or more men becomes unlawful or
criminal, is equal to asserting that
nought and nought make two.