Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/481

 452

The Green Bag

controversy the following rules: 1st, The right to maintain a lawful strike is superior to the employer's right to a free labor market. 2d, A labor union has the general right to make, and enforce by suitable penalties, rules and by-laws for the government of its members and the regulation of their conduct affecting the common welfare. Jd, In the ex ercise of this general right, it is lawful as between the union and its members for the union to enforce penalties on insubordinate members, in accordance with its rules and by-laws so providing, for not joining in a justifiable strike, or for not continuing on strike after going out. 4th, The rules and by-laws of the union constitute a contract between the union and its members. $th, A contract between a union and its mem bers, through its rules and by-laws, binding them to aid in a lawful strike by joining therein when so ordered, is not unlawful or against public policy. It follows, then, that in order for the courts to hold it unlawful for the union, in furtherance of a lawful strike, to impose or threaten to impose on its members, in accordance with its rules

and by-laws so providing, penalties, such as fines, suspension or expulsion, for the purpose of compelling them to join in, or continue on strike, it is nec essary to accept as sound law the follow ing proposition: Notwithstanding the facts that the right of the union and its members to maintain a lawful strike— to obtain better terms of employment— is superior to the right of the employer to a free labor market, and that the refusal of insubordinate members to join in or continue on such strike when declared is in violation of a valid con tract between them and the union binding them to do so, and lessens its power to render effective the exercise of this superior right, yet it is a violation of the employer's qualified and inferior right to a free labor market for the union to use means lawful as between it and its members—and the only means it possesses having a particle of effi cacy—in order to prevent such breach of contract, in derogation of its superior right. The mere statement of this proposition carries with it its own refutation, and there is no possible point of view from which it can be upheld.

The Trial of Madar Lai Dhinagri THE notable trial of Dhinagri, the East Indian student who murdered Sir W. Curzon Wyllie in London under such atro cious and revolting circumstances, was wit nessed by Mr. Thomas Learning of the Phila delphia bar, who furnished the Public Ledger of that city with an account from which we publish an extract. The trial took place at the Central Criminal Court, generally known as the Old Bailey, a modern building occupying the site of the old Fleet Prison.

The opening of court is a singular ceremony. From the rear of the bench enter two or more sheriffs, each dressed in a dark blue robe with fur trimmings, and each carrying a bouquet of bright flowers. Then comes the undarsheriff, dressed in black velvet, knee-breeches, ruffled shirt-front, cocked hat under his arm and a small sword at his side. Those persons back into the room with their faces toward his Lordship, whom they thus usher to his place. He also carries a bouquet, and on his desk, as well as on the