OCR Text |
Show LALHLId J Both Are Condemned by Jude Baker of Circuit Court Chicago, Feb. 11. Judge Francis E. Bakor, of the United States Circuit Court, in an address last night at a banquet given by the Chicago Bar association as-sociation In honor of Judge Julius V Mack, recently appointed as the justice jus-tice of tho commerce court, discussed the rights of capital and labor. Judge Baker said: "Without the aid of statute, the court6 have long since become agreed that workmen have the lawful right to organize for the purpose of securing secur-ing improvement in the terms and conditions con-ditions of labork and to quit work and to threaten, to quit work as means of compollng or attempting to compel, employers to accede to their demands "The capitalist asserts his right to an unobstructed access to tho labor mnrket so as to get his work done and thus free himself from the demands de-mands of his opponents. The workmen work-men assert their right to an unobstructed unob-structed access to the labor market so as to keep others out of their places "The sympathetic strike, like the spite fence, Is not the beneficial uso of a co-equal right, but is the usurpation usurpa-tion of the power to punish. This infliction in-fliction of harm Is unjustifiable unless tho harm Is only the harm that naturally natur-ally and directly flows from the good-faith good-faith exercise of tho competitive right. That is, the loss to his business that the employer suffors by reason of the striking employes presenting their side of the controversy to the other omployes so that they freely and of thoir own judgment decline to work for the employer, must be suffered by him without complaint. "Therefore, '"persuasion and picketing, picket-ing, in order to learn who the new employes are to whom to present their cause," are lawful and all judgments to the contrary are wrong, I believe. But, the use of force or Intimidation to keep others away against their will ia unjustifiable, because it deprives tho employer of his co-equal right of access ac-cess to a free labor market. "But concerted pressuro by the strlk eis to coerce members of society who are not directly concerned In the opening open-ing controversy to make raids on the., rear the secondary boycott fs wrong' not only Decause such action is not within "the immediate field of competition, compe-tition, but because the direct, the primary pri-mary attack is upon society itself "One set of rules should govern the action of both contestants. If the sympathetic strike is a foul blow, the sympathetic lockout Is equally foul. If a boycott is hold to be an attack In the rear, under like circumstances a blacklist is an nttack In the rear.'' |