THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Apr 15, 1903

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 29, No. 15.

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

(From the New York World.)

THE most pertinent, forceful, and valuable passage in the report of the President's Strike Commission is that treating of the right of every man to work on terms and conditions satisfactory to himself, free from fear or interference. This is the essence of human freedom—“the right to labor and enjoy the fruits of one's labor,” as Lincoln expressed it. On this point the Commission says:—

“The right to remain at work where others have ceased to work, or to engage anew in work which others have abandoned, is part of the personal liberty of a citizen that can never be surrendered, and every infringement thereof merits and should receive the stern denunciation of the law.

“Our language is the language of a free people, and fails to furnish any form of speech by which the right of a citizen to work when he pleases, for whom he pleases, and on what terms he pleases, can be successfully denied. The common sense of our people, as well as the common law, forbids that this right should be assailed with impunity. It is vain to say that the man who remains at work while others cease to work, or takes the place of one who has abandoned his work helps to defeat the aspirations of men who seek to obtain better recompense for their labor and better conditions of life. Approval of the object of a strike or persuasion that its purpose is high and noble can not sanction an attempt to destroy the right of others to a different opinion in this respect, or to interfere with their conduct in choosing to work upon what terms and at what time and for whom it may please them so to do.

“This all seems too plain for argument. Common sense and common law alike denounce the conduct of those who interfere with this fundamental right of the citizen. The assertion of the right seems trite and commonplace, but that land is blest where the maxims of liberty are commonplace.

“What is popularly known as the boycott (a word of evil omen and unhappy origin) is a form of coercion by which a combination of many persons seek to work their will upon a single person, or upon a few persons, by compelling others to abstain from social or beneficial business intercourse with such person or persons. Carried to the extent sometimes practised in aid of a strike, and as was in some instances practised in connection with the late anthracite strike, it is a cruel weapon of aggression, and its use immoral and anti-social.

“To say this is not to deny the legal right of any man or set of men voluntarily to refrain from social intercourse or business relations with any persons whom he or they, with or without good reason, dislike. This may sometimes be unchristian, but it is not illegal. But when it is a concerted purpose of a number of persons not only to abstain themselves from such intercourse, but to render the life of their victim miserable by persuading and intimidating others so to refrain, such purpose is a malicious one, and the concerted attempt to accomplish it is a conspiracy at common law, and merits and should receive the punishment due to such a crime.

“The practises which we are condemning would be outside the pale of civilized war. In civilized warfare women and children and the defenseless are safe from attack, and a code of honor controls the parties to such warfare which cries out against the boycott we have in view. Cruel and cowardly are terms not too severe by which to characterize it.”