The consensus of modern public opinion sustains the right of employees and laborers to form their unions and combinations for the purpose of co-operation and to better their general condition, and to take such steps as may be necessary for that purpose, so long as they are not guilty of violence, coercion, intimidation and other means which do not readily commend themselves to the fair-minded, just and honest citizen.

Many States have enacted laws authorizing incorporation of labor unions, and Congress, I believe in 1886, passed an act providing for the incorporation of labor organizations.

The Clayton Anti-Trust Act of October 15, 1914, declares that the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce, and that nothing contained in the Federal AntiTrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor organizations, and declares that such organizations should not be treated as illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade. That Act likewise impliedly recognizes the right to strike, and therefore prohibits the issuance of injunctions in cases growing out of disputes concerning the terms or conditions of employment, unless an injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury to property, or property rights, and no injunction shall issue to prohibit the termination of employment, or use of peaceful means to persuade others to quit work. The Act also recognizes the right of the employees to create strike funds for use during a strike. The Clayton Act is the last expression of the public policy of the Nation.

Thus, we find what was illegal and treated as a criminal of fence in the latter part of the eighteenth century and most of the nineteenth century to be fully legal in England and America at this day, and the right of laborers to combine and enforce their demands by peaceful means sustained by the consensus of public opinion and crystalized into statute law by Congress and the Legislatures of many States.

The right of capital to combine through formations of partnerships, joint stock companies and corporations, has long been recognized, and with modern inventions has become a necessity. Every one now concedes and realizes that the work

men, in dealing single-handed with the employer, is at a great disadvantage. As heretofore suggested, he does not own his tools or the machinery with which he works, and must, therefore secure employment from those who have the tools and the machinery. The owner of the tools and the machinery is consequently in a position to more or less dictate terms of employment. It is, therefore, necessary that the employees should unite and act in concert in order to neutralize the power of the employer. The employee dealing single-handed is not dealing at arm's length nor on an equality with the employer. Among the instructions given to every person admitted into the Order of the Knights of Labour, an order with approximately a million members in 1886 but about one hundred and thirty thousand in 1900, was this declaration of principle: "In all the multifarious branches of trade capital has its combinations; and, whether intended or not, they crush the manly hopes of labour and trample poor humanity in the dust. We mean no conflict with legitimate enterprise, no antagonism to necessary capital, but men, in their haste and greed, blinded by self-interests, overlook the interests of others, and sometimes violate the rights of those they deem helpless." No one can very well object to these abstract principles.

I am not going to discuss the wisdom of exempting labor organizations from the anti-trust laws. My own personal views are that a combination of individuals has no rights superior to a combination of capital when the aim of either is to accomplish by coercion and intimidation some selfish end or purpose. I generally regard as a demagogue the fellow continually talking about "human rights" as superior to "dollar rights." If you will investigate right carefully you will discover that the advocate of "human rights" above "dollar rights" is generally in pursuit of the dollar by a method requiring no labor or exertion on his part further than the expenditure of lung power or the consumption of a good deal of printer's ink. But as our economic demands require the combination of capital in order to develop our natural resources and carry on our commerce, a combination of labor is a necessary incident in order to neu

audiem gubite opinion sustains the right Baborers to form their unions and combinamrpuse of co-operation and to better their genand to take sich steps as may be necessary for long as they are not guilty of violence, eoerand offer mens which do not readily comes to the birc-minded, just and honest citizen. Saree cometed lows authorizing incorporation of

Congress, I believe in 1886, passed an act be incorporation of labor organizations. Butt-Thrust Act of October 15, 1914, declares of a homan being is not a commodity or article

men, in dealing single-handed with the emp disadvantage. As heretofore suggested, he tools or the machinery with which he work fore secure employment from those who hav machinery. The owner of the tools and the sequently in a position to more or less dietat ment. It is, therefore, necessary that the unite and act in concert in order to neutra the employer. The employee dealing singleing at arm's length nor on an equality wh Among the instructions given to every per the Order of the Knights of Labour, an or mately a million members in 1886 but about thirty thousand in 1900, was this declaration all the multifarious branches of trade capita tions; and, whether intended or not, they hopes of labour and trample poor humanity mean no conflict with legitimate enterprise, necessary capital, but men, in their haste and self-interests, overlook the interests of othe violate the rights of those they deem helpl very well object to these abstract principles I am not going to discuss the wisdom o organizations from the anti-trust laws. My o are that a combination of individuals has no a combination of capital when the aim of e lish by coercion and intimidation some selfi I generally regarda demagogue the fello ing about "hr

that nothing contained in the Federal AntiThe construed to forbid the existence and operangulations, and declares that such organizabe treated as illegal combinations or conspiraof trade. That Act likewise impliedly recognizes se, and therefore prohibits the issuance of inses growing out of disputes concerning the toms of employment, unless an injunction is ent irreparable injury to property, or property injunction stall issue to prohibit the terminament, or use of peaceful means to persuade

The Act also recognizes the right of the ate strike funds for use during a strike. The he lust expression of the public policy of the

what was illegal and treated as a eriminal of r part of the eighteenth century and most of tury to be fully legal in England and Amerid the right of laborers to combine and enforce peaceful means sustained by the consensus of nd crystalized into statute law by Congress res of many States.

pital to combine through pek companies and

and with moder

me now co

fully you wil bove "dollar

method requirin

an the expendit good deal of printer quire the combination cural resources and

of labor is a necessary incide

d with the employer, is at a great e suggested, he does not own his which he works, and must, therethose who have the tools and the e tools and the machinery is conre or less dictate terms of employssary that the employees should order to neutralize the power of dealing single-handed is not dealan equality with the employer. n to every person admitted into Labour, an order with approxi1886 but about one hundred and nis declaration of principle: "In of trade capital has its combinaor not, they crush the manly poor humanity in the dust. We ate enterprise, no antagonism to their haste and greed, blinded by cerests of others, and sometimes ey deem helpless." No one can -act principles.

the wisdom of exempting labor st laws. My own personal views viduals has no rights superior to the aim of either is to accompon some selfish end or purpose. gue the fellow continually talksuperior to "dollar rights." If

you will discover that the 'dollar rights" is generally requiring no labor or exerexpenditure of lung power of printer's ink. But as our mbination of capital in order and carry on our commerce, ssary incident in order to neu

tralize the power of capital and influence it to deal justly with labor. This is understood by all.

Conceding that the right to strike is a necessary instrument, and the only means by which a union of labor can make its combination effective, can the State take away that means and instrument? To answer this question, I do not regard it important to first determine whether or not a combination of labor and the right to strike are constitutional rights, provided the State, in denying the right to strike, substitutes a State agency to accomplish what labor claims the strike is intended to do.

In Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1, the Court assumed that individuals had a right to form a voluntary labor association, and that such organization has the inherent and constitutional right to deny membership to any man who will not agree that during such membership he will not accept or obtain employment in company with non-union men.

In Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 161, the Court held unconstitutional that part of the act of Congress of June 1, 1898, making it a criminal offence for the employer to require the employee as a condition of employment to enter into an agreement, either written or oral, not to become or remain a member of a labor organization, or threaten any employee with loss of employment, or unjustly discriminate against any employee because of his membership in a labor organization. The Court held the act unconstitutional on the ground that it was an invasion of the personal liberty as well as the right of property guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that the Federal Government shall not deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law. The Court sustained the right of the employer to select his own employee, and in Coppage v. Kansas the Court held the Kansas Act unconstitutional which undertook to make it unlawful for any individual, etc., to coerce, require, or demand or influence any person to enter into an agreement not to join or become or remain a member of any labor organization or association. One, an act of Congress, and the other, an act of a State Legis. lature, undertook to deprive the employer of his constitutional