New Britain herald., 1930-03-28
coal fields of West Virginia. con- tains the following terms:


 tains the following terms:
 1. understand that the company is operating "nonunion" and that it IS to continue 10 operate ''nonunion" while l am in its employ
 2. l am not now a member of the United Mine Workers, the I. w. w.. or any other organization of mine workers, and will not, while I am in the employ of this Company join or affiliate with any such mine labor organization.
 5. If at any time while in the en- ploy of the Company I want to be- come a member of or affiliate with, any such organization. I agree to withdraw from it's employment. aft CT giving it three days notice there | Of, and 10 surrender to the company the possession of any premises or property of the Company which I may be occupying or using. 4. l will not make any effort while Ill the employ of the Company, or upon it's property, to unionize it's employees or interfere in any way Wlththeir working for the Comapny
 ). l agree 10 accept the scale of wages which the Company is pa ying at this time for similar work, which is satisfactory 10 me.
 This memorandum, when accept ed by the Company, constitutes a con- tract of employment between me and said Company.
 If a strong union, dominating ar industry, were to specify that its employers were not 10 belong 10 q manufacturers association. a cham. Der of commerce, or any other O, the various "associations' that act in concert and function very muct i'll the nature of a trade union. anc the employers were forced to sigr a contract 10 that effect before tho members of the strong union con '~itleu IO pc SlllploSeu, tlleH the Cm ployers would unhesitatingly declar, that the yellow dog" contracts wer, illegal, unconstitutional bolshevistit and contrary to American principle of pursuing happiness and pelf.
 But they would be wrong-a f.r ' Court is concerned. For the nation highest tribunal held, in the Hitch man Coke and Coal case of 1917 that it is illegal for union official 10 organize men who have signec yellow dos" contracts. if at tn same time the men retain their em ployment.
 Turning into reverse, it would b equally illegal for a strong labo union 10 attempt 10 induce employ CTS belonging 10 an association" { forego such a1iliation before allow ing themselves 10 be employed.
 In one case before the su preme Court Nhe Coppage case 0 | 1915) when a Kansas statute mak ing it a criminal offense for employer to prescribe a "yollo,
 dog contract was under review and the law was invalidatcd by th Supreme Court, the three dissentin justices were Day, Holmes an Hughes
 II is well 10 note the last-namct | Justice Hughes was on record q
 opposing the yellow dog" contract
 in 1915.
 On the other hand. an injunctio | involving such contracts was denie . to the Interborough Rapid Trans Company of New York City on tt ground that such contracts are ir ] equitable
 . While on the fourth circuit cou Judge Parker in 1927 upheld a ; injunction against violating this tyr 7 Of contract. but union officials wei allowed 10 make speeches, circua'
 arguments and Iuse other "Iawful ? propaganda. In 1926, the year bt fore, Judge Parker had dismisser on grounds Of no jurisdiction an al , peal from a decision Of the distrit : court which had thrown out cor tempt proceedings against unionis for Violating an injunction. In th 2 Samc year he upheld 8 district cou