The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1926-12-26
DROPHY BACKS
LADOR'S RIGHT
TO The STRIKE
Mine Leader Debates in
Hartford, Conn.
tspeelaI q The oaIIy W0rIksrl


boris right to strike was debated be-
fore the Hartford Get-Toeether Club
with John Brophy, president Of Dis
trct No. 2, United Mine Workers, TAX
ing the affirmative against Walter Cor
don Merritt, former counsel for tSe
coal operators and now Iecturing for
the League for lndustraI Rights. The
latter organization publishes Law and
Labor and stands with employers for
legal limitations on labor oraaniza-
tons.
Merritt referred particularly to the
decision of the United States supreme
court In the Dorothy case, where even
the two justices usually termed lib
eral7 = Holmes and Brandeis = con-
Cured in the distinction made on
permissible purpose" in strikes. The
court ruled that August Dorchy, vice
president Of the Kansas District Union
of Miners, conducted an unpermissible
strike under the Industrial Court Law.
Are Illegal.
Dorchy was later denied a rehearing
when he pleaded that the Industrial
Court Law did not apply to coal mines
and must now serve years impris-
onment. Merritt used the case to
show that legal limitation on the right
to strike does exist. He mentioned
strikes which he declared were also
scarcely for permissible" purposes,
attempting to show that labor abuses
the strike weapon.
Organized labor strikes for self
preservation, Brophy argued. II the
right to strike is denied, workers b.
come as serfs under degrading con-
ditions and low pay. Society would
have to intervene and assume the re-
sponsibility evaded by employers if
the strike weapon were taken from
labor, he indicated. Even on public
utilities and ia government service,
the right to stElke should not be lin
tied by law. 8fopny urged.
Don'taGlve Up Right.
He said that in such work and even
where the corporation had legally
limited funds. when strikes occurred
a way was found to improve the con-
ditions OF the workers. Under public
ownership or naturalization of In
dustries, the right to strike should
hardly be necessary, but should not
le surrendered, he argued.
Placing limitations on labor's right
to strike ties workers to the job,
Brophy stated. Such action does VIC
lence to the whole scheme of constitu-
tional civil rights and brings compul-
sorry labor A new theory of govern
ment, other than the constitutional
democracy under which the United
States is supposed to be governed,
would have to be given for such action.
Brophy, answering the usual charges
that strikes inconvenience consumers,
asked whether mismanagement of in
dustry did not also. He referred par
ticularly to the bituminous coal in
dustry which he has studied while
working miner twenty years and a
union official later.
Capital Profits.
Capital exacts its return from the
consumer" said Brophy, "and in over
developed industries like the soft coal,
the drain on the consumer is consid-
cradle" He asserted that strikes in
his familiar industry had too often
been caused by employers attempting
to deny by force and with private
armies the right OF workers to organ
ize and bargain collectively. The
operators were then to blame for in
convenience and the cost to the con
sumner. He claimed that his opponent
and some of his questioners took the
attitude that a strike was a contest
for power between equals and pointed
out the fallacies Of that promise.