Case Name: In re Saul Berger
Court: Hamilton County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1912-06-01
Citations: 15 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 81
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re Saul Berger.
Judges: Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., concurs; Jones, J., dissents in a separate opinion.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 15
Pages: 81–87

Head Matter:
A STATUTE IN VIOLATION «F THE RIGHT OF LIBERTY.
Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
In re Saul Berger.
Decided, June 1, 1912.
Constitutional Law — Section 18948 Invalid — Unwarranted Interference with the Right to Contract for Labor and to Fix Conditions and Terms.
Section 12943, making it an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment for a member, agent or officer of a firm or corporation to prevent an employe from forming, joining or belonging to a lawful labor organization, or who coerces or attempts to coerce employes by ' discharging or threatening to discharge them for connection with such an organization, is an infringement upon constitutional rights . and is "therefore void and of no effect.
Morse •Tuttle, for the petitioner.
Nicholas Klein, contra.
Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., concurs; Jones, J., dissents in a separate opinion.

Opinion:
Upon the 24th day of January the petitioner was arrested upon an affidavit and warrant charging that on the 2d day of 'December,' 1911, he, being an agent and employe of the Roth Shoe Manufacturing Company, did unlawfully coerce and dis-1 charge. one Schroeder from the employment of. the said cpm•pany-,- because said Sehroeder was a member of the United Shoe Workers of'America, a lawful labor organization. -
To the answer of William H. Jackson, chief of'police óf the .city.of .Cincinnati, who by virtue of said warrant held the..,petitioner in custody, a demurrer was filed, setting up therein.that .Section 12943 of the General Code, the statute under which the prosecution of the petitioner was had, is unconstitutional as.be- • ing. in. contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments . to -the Constitution of the United States, and Section 1, .Article I, of the Constitution of Ohio,
Section 12943 reads as follows:
"Whoever, being a member, of a firm, or agent, officer or employe of a company, corporation or person, prevents employes from joining or belonging to a lawful labor organization, or coerces or attempts to coerce employes by discharging or threatening to discharge them from their employ or the employ of a firm, company or corporation because of their connection with such labor organization, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. ' '
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state, deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Section 1, Article I, of the Constitution of Ohio, declares:
' 'All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting ' property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety."
It was said by the court in the ease of People v. Marcus, 185 N. Y., 257:
"The free and untrammeled right to contract is a part of the liberty guaranteed- to every citizen by the Federal and State Constitutions. Personal liberty is always subject to restraint when its exercise affects the safety, health or moral and general welfare of the public, but subject to such restraint an employer and employe may make and enforce such contract relating to .-.-labor-as they- may agree upon."
. The offense charged against the petitioner in effect is-, that he, ' being an agent of the shoe company, did unlawfully coerce' and 'discharge one Schroeder from its service because of his membership in a labor organization.
We do not think that the Legislature can make such an act as is described in Section 12943 a criminal offense in the face, of the constitutional guaranties above cited.
"The right to employ labor and make contracts in relation thereto upon such terms' as may be mutually agreed upon is incident to the right of enjoying liberty and of acquiring, possessing and protecting property guaranteed by the Constitution. An essential element of the right to enter into a contract of employment is the right of the parties to fix the terms of the employment, and of either, party to terminate thé employment at pleasure, when it is not otherwise agreed upon. When the Constitution declares that every person has an inalienable right to liberty and to acquire, possess and protect property, it guar-' antees to him the right to make and enforce all proper contracts, and to employ in carrying on his business such persons and such lawful means as he may choose, free from all restraints except such as are necessary for the common welfare,.'' Ohio v. Bateman, 7 N. P., 487; People v. Marcus, 185 N. Y., 257; Adair v. United States, 208 U. S., 161, and cases cited therein; State v. Julow, 129 Mo., 163; Railroad Co. v. Schafer, 65 O. S., 420.
Upon an examination of the above authorities, together with numerous others cited by counsel, we can reach but one conclusion: that the great weight of authority is that statutes characteristic of the one in question are unconstitutional and void, and we so hold in this case-.
. The demurrer to the answer will be sustained and the petitioner discharged.