Labor Union's Right of Compulsion on pain of dismissal, from acting as agents for competing lines of ships. In In re Charge to Grand Jury,2,0 Judge Grosscup charged in substance that officers of a union acting in combination, who call strikes under threats of en forcing their orders by the infliction of effective penalties, are not guilty of the offense of conspiring to retard and obstruct the mails, if they acted in good faith and for the purpose of ad vancing the interests of the union. It is thus apparent from a review of the decisions that the decided weight of authority is against the Willcutt case. Its authority is still further weakened by the exceptionally able dissenting opinion of Judge Sheldon, in which the Chief Justice concurred, and by the further fact that Judge Loring agreed with the reasoning of the dissenting opinion, but considered that the case was ruled by Martell v. White and that the doctrine of stare decisis must apply. "It would," he said, "be hard to meas ure the disastrous consequences to the administration of justice, if it were thought that a change in the per sonnel of the Court is to be the occasion of re-arguing what has been decided."21 (b) Having shown what the general trend of authority is, an attempt will be made to show how the question should be decided on principle, and in reaching an intelligent conclusion it is necessary at the outset to ascertain with precision what the primary rights of the parties in contests of the char acter under consideration are, and also the relation of these rights to each other. The right of the employer may be described as the right to a free labor market, to have labor flow freely to «062 Fed. 828. "See opinion of Loring, J., 85 N. E. at page 910.
449
him,22 in other words, the right to employ or to retain in his employ those who are willing to work for him, upon such terms as may be mutually agreed upon.23 The right of employees, mem bers of a union, so far as the matter under consideration is concerned, is the right of persons not under contract to serve for a definite time, to strikethat is to quit their employment by concerted action—for the purpose of obtaining better terms of employment, as, for instance, shorter hours of labor or an increase of wages, and to use all means not in themselves unlawful nor inconsistent with the rights of others, in order to render the strike effective,24 the latter right being necessarily in volved in the right to strike. The right to strike for the purposes and under the conditions mentioned is so compre hensive and compelling in its nature, that, leaving out of consideration a limited number of earlier decisions the rulings in which are probably attrib utable to the influence of the harsh and tyrannical English statutes relative to laborers and which have long since been repudiated, no reported decision "Jersey City Printing Co. v. Cassidy, 63 N. J. Eq. 759, 53 Atl. 230; Atkins v. W. A. Fletcher Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 658, 55 Atl. 1074; Barr v. Essex Trades Council, 53 N. J. Eq. 101, 30 Atl. 881; L. D. Will cutt <&» Sons Co. v. Bricklayers' Benevolent and Pro tective Union, Mass., 85 N. E. 897; Iron Moulders' Union v. Allis Chalmers Co., 166 Fed. 45; Quinn v. Leatham (1901), A. C. 495, 70 L. J., P. C. 76, 85 L. T. 289. "Maryland Lodge v. Adt, 100 Md. 238, 56 Atl. 721, 68 L. R. A. 252; Vegelahn v. Guntner, 157 Mass. 62, 44 N. E. 1077, 57 Am. St. Rep. 443; Beck v. Railway Teamsters' Protective Union, 118 Mich. 497. 77 N. W. 13, 74 Am. St. Rep. 44, 42 L. R. A. 407; Brennan v. United Hatters of North America, 73 N.J. Eq. 729, 65 Atl. 165, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 254; Frank v. Herold, N. J. Eq. 443, 52 Atl. 153; Master Stevedores' Association v. Walsh, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 1; Purvis v. United Brotherhood of Car penters and Joiners, 214 Pa. St. 344, 63 Atl. 585, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 242, 112 Am. St. Rep. 272. uKarges Furniture Co. v. Amalgamated Wood workers' Union, 165 Ind. 421, 11 N. E. 877. 2 L. R A. (N. S.) 788; Goldfield Consolidated Mines Co. v. Goldfield Miners' Union, 159 Fed. 500, 519. And see Cray v. Building Trades Council, 91 Minn. 171, 97 N. W. 663, 63 L. R. A. 753, 103 Am. St. Rep. 477; Morris Coal Min. Co. v. Guy, 14 Pa. Dist. Rep. 600.
