Labor Union's Right of Compulsion duct in violation of the fundamental objects of the union,31 the right being subject to the limitation that it cannot make and enforce rules and by-laws which are in contravention of the laws or of public policy.32 And the con stitution, rules and by-laws of a union constitute a contract between the union and its members.33 This right to make and enforce rules and by-laws for the government of its members is essential to the existence of any union or association, for if each member may determine his own line of conduct for himself without responsibility of any character to the organization to which he belongs and owes his allegiance, then it is in. a large measure shorn of the power to accomplish the objects for which it was formed. To repeat the language of Judge Adams, quoted in a preceding paragraph of this article: "The will of the individual must consent to yield to the will of the majority, or no organization either of society into gov ernment, capital into combination, or labor into coalition can ever be effec10 N. Y. Suppl. 916, 24 Abb. N. C. 150); Master Stevedores' Association v. Walsh, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 1; Thomas v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 62 Fed. 803; Wabash R. Co. v. Hannahan, 121 Fed. 563; Long shore Printing and Publishing Co. v. Howell, 26 Ore. 527, 38 Pac. 547, 46 Am. St. Rep. 640, 28 L. R. A. 464; Moores &r Co. v. Bricklayers' Union, 23 Ohio W'kly Law Bui. 48, 10 Ohio Dec. 665; Gray v. Building Trades Council, 91 Minn. 171, 97 N. W. 663; Perrault v. Gautier, 28 Can. Sup. Ct. 241 (affirming 6 Q. B. 65). 31 Otto v. Tailors' Protective Union, 75 Cal. 308, 17 Pac. 217, 7 Am. St. Rep. 156; Beaseley v. Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Association, 44 Ill. App. 278; Brennan v. United Hatters of America, 73 N. J. L. 729, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 254. "See Schneider v. Local Union No. bo, 116 La. 270, 40 So. 700, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 891, 114 Am. St. Rep. 549; Purvis v. United Brotherhood of Car penters and Joiners, 214 Pa. St. 348, 63 Atl. 585, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 642; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Penn sylvania Co., 54 Fed. 730, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 387; Waterhouse v. Comer, 55 Fed. 149, 19 L. R. A. 403; Parker v. Toronto Musical Protective Union, 32 Ont. (Can.) 305. "Brown v. Stoerkel, 74 Mich. 269, 41 N. W. 925, 3 L. R. A. 430; Connell v. Stalker, 48 N. Y. Suppl. 77, 21 Misc. 609; Harrington v. Sendall (1903), 1 Ch. 921. And see 4 CYC Associations, 305; Levy v. Magnolia Lodge No.2Q,I. O. O. F., 110 Calif. 297, 42 Pac. 887; Hammerstein v. Parsons, 38 Mo. App. 332; Weatherly v. Montgomery County Medical Society, 76 Ala. 576.
451
tive. The individual must yield in order that the many may receive a greater benefit."34 Also pertinent in this connection is the following quo tation from a recent decision: "The risk of fines and expulsion is one vol untarily assumed by the members en tering the union, and if no longer willing to pay the price, if the advantages to be derived are not equal to the burdens assumed, each member has a perfect right to withdraw from the union."35 Indeed, this general right of a union to make, and enforce by penalties, rules and by-laws for the government of its members, has never been denied, where the rights of the union and its members only are involved. Can it be held unlawful, then, as between a union and its members for the union to impose penalties, in accordance with its rules and by-laws, on members who refuse to quit work in aid of a justifiable strike, or to continue on strike, after going out? The answer is that the lawfulness of such action by the union as between itself and its members is amply sus tained by many well considered decis ions,36 and denied by none, nor could any valid reason be assigned for such denial. It is hardly possible to con ceive of a case where the right of a union to exercise disciplinary measures would be stronger. Nor can any sound reason be advanced why this right should be restricted or denied, merely because the employer may suffer inci dental damage thereby. This is dem onstrated by the foregoing review of the decisions, which establishes beyond "Wabash R. Co. v. Hannahan, 121 Fed. at p. 571. 38Jetton Lumber Co. v. Mather (Fla.), 43 So. 590. "Thomas v. Cincinnati R. Co., 62 Fed. 803, 807; In re Charge to Grand Jury, 62 Fed. 828; Master Stevedores' Association v. Walsh, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 1; Longshore Printing cV Publishing Co. v. Howell 26 Ore. 527, 38 Pac. 547, 46 Am. St. Rep. 640, 28 L. R. A. 464; Jetton-Dehkle Lumber Co. v. Mather, Fla., 43 So. 590.
