Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co. v. Bailey

61 F. 494, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2977
District Court, D. Indiana·Decided January 20, 1893·No. No. 8,811·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

BAKER, District Judge,

in pronouncing sentence upon those who were convicted, said orally:

The court recognizes the right oi any man or number of men to quit the service of their employers, and it recognizes the right of men to organize if they deem it expedient to better their condition. It also recognizes the hardships of the life of the average laboring man. Their conditions are often such as to touch the sensibilities of a feeling heart. The court is also aware of the scanty wmges which they often receive, and of their long and arduous hours of service, frequently exposed to the rigors of an inclement season. All these things are calculated to produce sympathy in every right-minded man. It is laudable for men, whether they are day laborers or are engaged in other vocations of life, by organization to take any lawful course for the purpose of bettering their condition; but it must be done according to those principles that lie at the very foundation of the social compact. Man was created for organized society; and in order that society shall exist, whatever may be the form of government, it is absolutely indispensable that the great fundamental and God-given right of every human being, unrestrained and unintimidated, to labor and enjoy the fruits of his toil, should be protected. There is little excuse for labor to organize, and, by unlawful means, attempt to overthrow the law. Society is organized under our form of government on the recognition of man’s rights as man. If society were overthrown, and men turned back into conditions of anarchy, as they .were, in large measure, during the dark ages, when power and force made right, the condition of the laboring man would not be bettered. If such were the condition of society, the man or the men with great intellectual power and great wealth would become the masters of the laboring classes as in those dark ages, and the laborer would be little better than a slave. The effort of these defendants, as the evidence in this case shows, is an effort, not only to overthrow the law, but also an effort to overturn the just authority of the courts. To permit this would be an offense, not only against society, but against the laboring men themselves. In the convulsions of society, when law becomes silent and force reigns, it is the humble and the poor and the powerless that become the victims. The condition of things that is evidenced by these strikes is well calculated to impress thoughtful men with their danger. I do not know but that I am a little old-fashioned in my notions, but I confess that I cannot look with any degree of tolerance on the false and dangerous teachings of those who actively, or by their silent acquiescence, are leading labor organizations to think that, because they are organized in associations, they have the right to seize property, or, by intimidation, to prevent well-disposed people from laboring. In my judgment, it is no less criminal for an organized body of men to commit these wrongs than it would be for a single man, armed with bludgeons or revolvers, to commit the same wrongs on the persons or property of others. I confess that, so far as I can see, if my property or personal rights are invaded by a body of men who call themselves “organized laborers,” there is no more distinction, [496] either in the view of God’s law or human law, than if the same things were done by a single individual. Indeed, it would be more tolerable if it were done by the midnight robber in the silent watches of the night'than if it were done by an organized body of men. I think it would be wholesome if this lesson, which was taught me by my parents in a rude froniier cabin in the early settlements of Northwestern Ohio, had been taught these men by their fathers and mothers. When I come to the final disposition of these cases, I shall deal justly and mercifully with these men; but I do not intend that it shall ever be said of me, if anything shall ever be said, that, as a magistrate, I failed in the discharge of my duty in any such way as tended to unsettle the foundations of our government. I am charged with a great and solemn duty. There can be no greater or more solemn duty than that which requires judges to impress on men, not only the supremacy of the law, and the rightful supremacy of the law, but that it is necessary that men should be punished who violate the law, in order that the fabric of human society may not go to pieces.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co. v. Bailey, 61 F. 494, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2977 (indianad 1893).

61 F. 494 (Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co. v. Bailey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ex Parte Hacker
33 So. 2d 324 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1947)
Davis v. Zimmerman
36 N.Y.S. 303 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
Longshore Printing Co. v. Howell
28 L.R.A. 464 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1894)
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Northern Pac. R.
60 F. 803 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin, 1894)