I 
 
 Boom of tfjc Closeti 
 
 jjop anti 
 Cra&e Agreements 
 
 WORKINGMEN EMANCIPATED 
 
 CONTRACTS TO EMPLOY ONLY 
 UNION MEN ARE CRIMINAL 
 CONSPIRACIES 
 
 EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN 
 MAKING SUCH CONTRACTS 
 LIABLE TO IMPRISONMENT 
 
 IMPORTANT COURT DECISION 
 
!> "b\ 
 
 a «-ri 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
o. 
 
 n 
 
 ur 
 
 o 
 
 h 
 
 T> 
 
 The Open Shop Vindicated . Closed Shop 
 
 Unlawful and Criminal . Subject to Fine 
 and Imprisonment in Penitentiary. 
 
 Labor Unions a Trust in Restraint 
 of Trade Same as Indus¬ 
 trial Trusts. 
 
 Every business man, every professional man, 
 every working-man, should read the accompanying 
 quotations from the notable decision of Judges 
 Adams, Windes, and Ball, who constitute the Ap¬ 
 pellate Court of Cook County, Illinois. 
 
 Under this decision, the “open shop” for which 
 employers have been contending, and which is now 
 being so generally insisted upon by employers under 
 the leadership of the Citizens’ Industrial Associ¬ 
 ation of America, is upheld, while the “closed shop” 
 agreements exacted from employers by labor unions 
 are an illegal infringement of contract rights, and 
 agreements binding employers to hire none but 
 union men are an illegal abridgement of liberty, 
 discriminating in favor of one class of working 
 people and excluding all others. 
 
 The employer who signs a “closed shop” contract 
 and the union which secures such a contract by 
 threats of strikes, boycotts, etc., are liable to the 
 criminal laws for conspiring to .injure the “prop¬ 
 erty rights” of a workman in his labor. 
 
 An employer who makes a contract to employ 
 only union men, or only non-union men, lays him¬ 
 self liable to punishment under the criminal and 
 civil law. Any person may enforce his right to be 
 protected against this conspiracy when he seeks 
 employment in any workshop, store, factory, or 
 other place of business. 
 
 3 
 
It is a crime to attempt to force a “closed shop” 
 agreement on an employer, or demand his signature 
 to such a contract, because it is a crime to seek 
 to influence any one to commit a crime. 
 
 The decision is regarded as declaring all “closed 
 shop” agreements to be not only illegal and crim¬ 
 inal, but null and void if secured under duress or 
 threats of strikes, boycotts, etc. Under this de¬ 
 cision, the one per cent, who control the ten per 
 cent, of labor of the country, who are banded to¬ 
 gether as trades unionists, can no longer dictate 
 the terms and conditions upon which the free and 
 independent ninety per cent, of peaceful and law- 
 abiding citizens may be employed. 
 
 The case came before the court on appeal from 
 the injunction granted by Judge Holdom against 
 the strikers at the plant of the Kellog Switchboard 
 Company. The “closed shop” contract is a viola¬ 
 tion of the provisions of the Constitution of the 
 United States guaranteeing “life, liberty, and prop¬ 
 erty,” together with the further guarantee that 
 the privileges shall never be abridged, and prohib¬ 
 iting discrimination between citizens. In the opin¬ 
 ion of eminent lawyers and judges the decision will 
 be sustained by the higher court, in the event of 
 an appeal. As no question of interstate commerce 
 is involved, it is not probable the case will reach the 
 United States Supreme Court. 
 
 It will encourage employers in their contention 
 for the universal adoption of the “open shop” pol¬ 
 icy, and will eventually sound the death-knell of the 
 illegal, criminal, and un-American “closed shop.” 
 
 CHICAGO CHRONICLE EDITORIAL* 
 
 The following concise review of the decision is 
 quoted from a very able editorial in the Chicago 
 Chronicle: 
 
 “CLOSED SHOP UNLAWFUL AND CRIMINAL. 
 
 “Of all the court decisions affecting the right of 
 contract none is of such vital importance to em¬ 
 ployers and employees as the one recently handed 
 
down by the Apellate Court of Cook County con¬ 
 cerning what is known as the ‘closed shop’ contract, 
 for it goes to the very heart of the question out of 
 which arises the chief contention between labor 
 unions and employers. 
 
 “The decision of the Appellate Court specifically 
 declares that the parties to such contracts, if com¬ 
 pulsion be used, are guilty of an unlawful act, and 
 if entered into voluntarily are guilty of a criminal 
 conspiracy. These declarations are based upon the 
 accepted principles of common law, the guarantees 
 of the State and the National Constitution, and the 
 specific language of the criminal statutes. 
 
 “Under the law of contracts it is not only un¬ 
 lawful to compel one to execute a contract, but a 
 contract executed under duress is voidable. Such is 
 the nature of most of the ‘closed shop’ contracts, 
 for, although the employer apparently may exercise 
 free will, the fact remains that the majority of 
 closed shop contracts are executed to avoid a strike 
 or to end one already existing, and the court de¬ 
 clares that ‘duress exists when a person is induced 
 to perform an act to avoid a threatened and im¬ 
 pending calamity.’ 
 
 “The ‘closed shop’ contract is in itself a denial 
 of freedom of contract both to employers and to 
 non-union workman, and is therefore a violation of 
 fundamental law. Freedom of contract has been 
 defined by the Supreme Court of the State as both 
 a liberty and a property right. Labor is declared 
 to be property, and, therefore, to deprive the laborer 
 and employer of this right to contract with one 
 another is held to be a violation of Section 2, Arti¬ 
 cle 2, of the Constitution of Illinois, which provides 
 that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or 
 property without due process of law.’ The labor 
 unionists have the same freedom of contract as any 
 other persons, but when they enter upon a contract 
 for a ‘closed shop’ they attempt to deprive all who 
 may not bo members of unions of the same right, 
 and therefore are guilty of an unlawful act. 
 
“The ‘closed shop’ contract, according to the Su¬ 
 preme Court decision to which the Apellate judges 
 refer, is equally a violation of the provisions of the 
 Constitution of the United States guaranteeing 
 ‘life, liberty, and property,’ as in the Illinois Con¬ 
 stitution, together with the further guarantee that 
 the privileges shall never be abridged, and prohibit¬ 
 ing discriminations between citizens. 
 
 “The criminal statute governing the offense is 
 explicit. Where two or more persons combine by 
 unlawful means to prevent any person from obtain¬ 
 ing employment Section 158 of the Criminal Code 
 provides for both a fine and imprisonment. 
 
 “Under this law, as interpreted by the decision, 
 employers and labor unionists who have entered 
 into an agreement for a ‘closed shop’ are guilty of 
 an unlawful act, which, if voluntarily performed, 
 constitutes a criminal conspiracy. Neither employers 
 nor labor unionists who hereafter enter into agree¬ 
 ments for a ‘closed shop’ Can plead ignorance of 
 their legal rights in palliation. If the employer be 
 coerced he is nevertheless guilty of an unlawful act 
 for which there are ample remedies at law ; if he 
 voluntarily enters into such a contract he can be 
 prosecuted under the criminal statutes. 
 
 “The ‘closed shop’ is the crux of the whole labor 
 union situation. It is not a subject for legislation 
 to be made the shuttlecock of vociferous dema¬ 
 gogues, but one to be dealt with by the dispassion¬ 
 ate judgment of the courts. There is every reason 
 to believe that the Supreme Court will take the 
 same view of ‘closed shop’ contracts as that held 
 by Judges Adams, Windes, and Ball, of the Appel¬ 
 late Court, for the latter are all men of long judi¬ 
 cial experience, and of able and temperate judg¬ 
 ment. 
 
 “Moreover, the decision of the Appellate Court 
 rests in part upon a decision of the Supreme Court, 
 and there is no utterance of the Appellate Court at 
 variance with that decision.” 
 
 6 
 
THE TEXT OF THE DECISION. 
 
 The following are brief quotations from the de¬ 
 cision, but they are so clear and decided as to merit 
 the careful attention of every good citizen. They 
 are of especial interest to the man who wants to be 
 
 * 
 
 a free and independent workman and will welcome 
 deliverance from the bondage of trades unionism. 
 
 “The purpose of the strike by complainant’s em¬ 
 ployees and their prosecution of it, as described, 
 was to compel the complainant to execute the agree¬ 
 ments referred to and made a part of the bill. The 
 drafts of agreements, three in number, purport to 
 be with the different unions whose members were 
 in complainant’s employ. The draft of agreement 
 with the Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers, Brass 
 Holders, and Brass Workers’ International Union 
 of North America, International Union of Steam 
 Engineers, and International Brotherhood of Sta¬ 
 tionary Firemen contains the following: 
 
 “Article 1. The party of the first part hereby 
 agrees to employ none but members of the aforesaid 
 organizations or those who carry the regular work¬ 
 ing card of the said organizations, provided the 
 various crafts will furnish such competent help as 
 may be required by the party of the first part with¬ 
 in twenty-four hours after notification. 
 
 “Article 7. There shall be a steward for each 
 craft in each factory appointed by the organization, 
 whose duty it shall be to see that the men working 
 in said factory belong to the organizations. 
 
 “Article 8. It is hereby agreed by the party of 
 the first part that the business agent of the party 
 of the second part shall have the privilege of inter¬ 
 viewing any member of the party of the second 
 part in the offices of the party of the first part dur¬ 
 ing business hours. 
 
 “Article 10. A sympathetic strike to protect 
 union principles shall not be considered a violation 
 of this agreement. 
 
 7 
 
“Article 11. All the apprentices shall belong to 
 the union and carry the working card of the organ¬ 
 ization. 
 
 “Article 12. The number of apprentices not to 
 exceed one for ten men or less of the different 
 crafts. 
 
 PURPOSE TO EXFORCE CLOSED SHOP. 
 
 “That the purpose of the strike was to compel 
 the execution of the drafts of agreement is clear. 
 It is averred in the sworn bill and deposed to in the 
 affidavits of De Wolf, complainant’s president; Kel¬ 
 logg, its secretary and treasurer, and Edwards, its 
 superintendent, that business agents of the different 
 unions called on complainant and insisted on its 
 executing the agreements and that, when complain¬ 
 ant’s president refused, on the ground that the pro¬ 
 posed agreements were unreasonable, it was threat¬ 
 ened by one of said business agents that unless 
 complainant would sign the agreements a strike 
 would be called and that said business agents called 
 a strike, in response to which about five hundred 
 of complainant’s employees quit its employ. Appel¬ 
 lant’s counsel admit in their brief the purpose of 
 the strike is to bring about the execution of the con¬ 
 tracts, and at least three of the appellants so admit 
 in their answers. It is unlawful to compel one to 
 execute any contract. A contract executed under 
 duress is voidable, and duress is present where a 
 party ‘is constrained, under circumstances which 
 deprive him of the exercise of free will, to agree or 
 to perform the act sought to be avoided .’ 
 
 “Duress exists when a person is induced to per¬ 
 form an act to avoid a threatened and impending 
 calamity. Especially was the purpose to compel 
 complainant to execute the agreements in question 
 an unlawful purpose. Article 1 of the agreement 
 strikes at the right of contract and provides that 
 complainant shall employ none but members of the 
 several unions, thus discriminating in favor of one 
 class of men and excluding all others. In Matthews 
 
 8 
 
vs. The People, 202 Ill., 389, the court, discussing 
 the constitutionality of the free employment agency 
 act, says (page 401) : ‘An employer whose work¬ 
 men have left him and gone on a strike, partic¬ 
 ularly when they have done so without any justi¬ 
 fiable cause, is entitled to contract with other labor¬ 
 ers or workmen to fill the places of those who have 
 left him. Any workman seeking work has a right 
 to make a contract with such employer to work for 
 him in the place of any one of the men who have 
 left him to go out upon a strike. Therefore the pro¬ 
 hibition contained in Section 8 strikes at the right 
 of contract, both on the part of the laborer and of 
 the employer. It is now ivell settled that the priv¬ 
 ilege of contracting is both a liberty and a property 
 right. Liberty includes the right to make and enforce 
 contracts . because the right to make and enforce 
 contracts is included in the right to acquire prop¬ 
 erty. Labor is property. To deprive the laborer and 
 the employer of this right to contract with one an¬ 
 other is to violate Section 2 of Article 2 of the Con¬ 
 stitution of Illinois, which provides that ‘no person 
 shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property with¬ 
 out due process of law. 1 It is equally a violation of 
 the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Con¬ 
 stitution of the United States. The provision em¬ 
 bodied in Section 8 ‘is a discrimination between 
 different classes of citizens founded on no justifiable 
 ground and an attempt to exercise legislative power 
 in behalf of certain classes, and against other 
 classes, whether laborers seeking work or employ¬ 
 ers. It falls under the condemnation of the Consti¬ 
 tution 1 
 
 “The agreement in question would , if executed, 
 tend to create a monopoly in favor of the members 
 of the different unions, to the exclusion of workmen 
 not members of such unions, and are, in this re¬ 
 spect, unlawful. Contracts tending to create a mo¬ 
 nopoly are void. 
 
 “The legislature* of the State cannot create a 
 monopoly. 
 
 9 
 
Violated Criminal Code . 
 
 u The purpose of the strikers is in violation of the 
 criminal code, which provides as follows: 
 
 Sec. 158. If any two or more persons shall com¬ 
 bine for the purpose of depriving the owner or possessor 
 of property of its lawful use and management, or of 
 preventing, by threats, suggestions of danger, or by any 
 unlawful means, any person from being employed by 
 or obtaining employment from any such owner or 
 possessor of property, on such terms as the parties con¬ 
 cerned may agree upon, such persons so offending shall 
 be fined not exceeding $500 or confined in the county 
 jail not exceeding six months. 
 
 Sec. 159. If any person shall, by threat, intimi¬ 
 dation or unlawful interference, seek to prevent any 
 other person from working or from obtaining work at 
 
 any lawful business, on any terms that he may see fit, 
 such person so offending shall be fined not exceeding 
 $ 200 . 
 
 Not only was the purpose of the strike unlawful 
 but the means used to achieve the unlawful purpose 
 were unlawful. 
 
 “a man’s business is iiis property. 
 
 “ ‘The freedom of business action lies at the 
 foundation of all commercial and industrial enter¬ 
 prises.’ 
 
 “We know of no well-considered case, or. indeed, 
 of any case, holding that a combination of persons 
 to injure the business of another is not unlawful. 
 That the appellants, and other* associated with 
 them, acted in concert, in unlawfully endeavoring 
 to injure, and, in fact, injuring complainant’s busi¬ 
 ness for an unlawful purpose, is fully sustained by 
 the evidence. 
 
 “Each conspirator is responsible for the acts and 
 declarations of every other conspirator in further¬ 
 ance of the common purpose. It i& an indispensable 
 
 10 
 
condition of the enjoyment by each citizen of the 
 liberty and rights guaranteed by the constitution 
 and laws that he shall respect and not unlawfully 
 infringe upon the liberty or rights of any other 
 citizen. This cannot be done with impunity.” 
 
 Opinions of Prominent Chicago 
 Attorneys. 
 
 “It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of 
 this decision,” said Horace K. Tenney, in an inter¬ 
 view. “Judge Adams is one of the most eminent 
 jurists on the bench, and I am confident his decision 
 will be sustained in the State Supreme Court, to 
 which the cases are likely to go on another appeal. 
 Briefly, the grounds of the decision may be said 
 to be that the ‘closed shop’ contracts are opposed to 
 sound public policy, as well as the statutory and 
 common law, and the Constitution of the State of 
 Illinois. Why they are opposed to public policy is 
 because they are agreements in restraint of trade. 
 The reasoning and the law upon that point are 
 clear and unmistakable. The strike was called to 
 enforce the contracts submitted by the union for 
 the closed shop; and the court has squarely decided 
 in favor of the open shop, which is the open door of 
 trade and commerce in the nation. The closed shop 
 is simply a boycott of workmen, and no court in 
 this country has yet decided that before a man is 
 eligible for work in a factory or store lie must have 
 
 a permit or union-labor card from the officials of 
 
 «* 
 
 certain organizations whose decrees have no binding 
 force in law. 
 
 “A remarkable feature of the case was that Judge 
 Adams held the closed shop contract to be a viola¬ 
 tion of the Criminal, as well as the Civil Code of 
 the State of Illinois. On this point the decision is 
 significant, in that it provides the employers with a 
 powerful weapon in future negotiations with labor 
 leaders. It is now clear that by the very fact a 
 labor leader or delegation of members from a union 
 present a copy of a closed shop agreement for an 
 
 11 
 
employer’s signature the person or persons doing 
 such a thing are amenable to the Criminal Code, 
 and may be given a term in the county jail for the 
 mere act of demanding or asking the employer’s 
 signature.” 
 
 employers’ weapon of defense. 
 
 “It is one of the most important decisions ever 
 rendered in the courts of Illinois,” said Attorney 
 M. L. Coffeen. “It points out clearly wherein the 
 operations of labor unions enter the domain of the 
 criminal. It will be an unassailable barrier and 
 protection for employers, as the terrorism of labor 
 unions is directly rebuked by Judge Adams. It is 
 
 'A 
 
 not likely that the contract agreements for the 
 ‘closed shop’ can survive this decision. The court 
 , holds that the closed shop is a crime. So the em¬ 
 ployer will have unanswerable reasons in future 
 for refusing to become particeps criminis with labor 
 union leaders in any agreement, oral, written, or 
 implied, for the maintenance of the closed shop 
 anywhere in Illinois. It is no exaggeration to say 
 that the opinion means the legal death of the closed 
 shop and the triumph of the non-union man’s right 
 to an open shop, where he may have an equal 
 chance with the union worker to obtain and retain 
 employment.” 
 
 STOP VIOLENCE and assaults. 
 
 Attorney A. F. Hatch discussed the decision as 
 follows: 
 
 “This decision not only is based upon the highest 
 authority but it commends itself to the reason of 
 every dispassionate and fair-minded person. The 
 closed shop is simply an attempt to establish a 
 local monopoly by excluding from the shop all per¬ 
 sons not members of the union or unions there em¬ 
 ployed. It is clearly an illegal combination for the 
 purpose of wu*ong and injury to others for the ben¬ 
 efit of the members of the conspiracy, and is prop¬ 
 erly held to be unlawful and criminal. It follows 
 
 12 
 
as a natural consequence that any party to such a 
 conspiracy, either as an employer or as an em¬ 
 ployee, is liable to criminal prosecution and pun¬ 
 ishment. 
 
 “The promulgation and enforcement of the prin¬ 
 ciples laid down in this decision will be wholesome 
 in many ways and will tend to put a stop to the 
 violence and assaults upon non-unionists who are 
 satisfied to labor upon the terms offered by the em¬ 
 ployers. 
 
 “Any combination of individuals for the purpose 
 of injuring others or depriving them of their lawful 
 right to contract or to engage in employment ceases 
 to be an organization protected by the law and be¬ 
 comes a conspiracy as criminal as the Molly Ma- 
 quires or Ku-Klux Klan. The sooner such organi¬ 
 zations are rooted out the better for the peace and 
 security of the community.” 
 
 CLOSED SHOP A CRIME. 
 
 “The exhaustive and able opinion of the Appel¬ 
 late Court, just rendered by Judge Adams, the pre¬ 
 siding justice, should prove epoch-making,” said 
 Levy Mayer, Esq. “The opinion is a thorough and 
 rugged review, both upon principle and authority, 
 of one of the most important questions that have 
 ever confronted the employer. It is the first opin¬ 
 ion rendered in this State upon the question of 
 the legality of a contract by which the employer 
 agrees not to employ non-union labor. 
 
 “All other economic and legal questions aside, it 
 now becomes in this State a complete answer to the 
 demand of the. closed shop that the law stamps 
 such an arrangement as a criminal conspiracy. It 
 is elementary that the crime of conspiracy consists 
 of a combination of two or more persons to effect an 
 illegal purpose, either by legal or illegal means or 
 to effect a legal purpose by illegal means. The dis¬ 
 pute has always been as to whether a contract not 
 to employ non-union labor is an agreement to effect 
 an illegal purpose. It has been asserted over and 
 
J 
 
 over again by those advocating the closed shop that 
 an agreement to employ only union labor is per¬ 
 fectly legal and binding. 
 
 ‘‘The courts have frequently heretofore held ille¬ 
 gal an agreement among members of an association 
 to withdraw their patronage from any one who sold 
 to one who was not a member of the association or 
 an agreement which permitted members of an asso¬ 
 ciation to make purchases only from such as sell 
 exclusively to members of the association. I have 
 never been able to appreciate the distinctions which 
 
 some courts have endeavored to make between cases 
 
 % 
 
 of the kind I have indicated and cases where the 
 right to employ non-union labor was involved. 
 There is no doubt that persons may combine for 
 legitimate purposes and that an individual may re¬ 
 fuse to deal with any particular person or class of 
 persons and base such refusal upon mere whim or 
 caprice, but it has been my opinion, and I am more 
 than gratified to find it sustained by the Appellate 
 Court, that a number of persons cannot combine 
 with the object of compelling the adoption of a con¬ 
 tract which prohibits the employer from employing 
 non-union labor. 
 
 CONTRACT IS A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. 
 
 “If such a contract is • entered into it is illegal 
 and under the decision of the Appellate Court con¬ 
 stitutes a criminal conspiracy , to tchich not only 
 the union hut the employer becomes a party, and 
 for which not only the employee but the employer 
 is subject to fine or imprisonment in the peniten¬ 
 tiary , or both, under our criminal statutes. There 
 are a vast number of manufacturing concerns that 
 have written contracts with labor unions which 
 prohibit the employment of non-union labor. Un¬ 
 der this decision of the Appellate Court many hun¬ 
 dreds , if not thousands, of employers , as well as 
 many thousands of employees, have thus deliber¬ 
 ately become parties to a criminal conspiracy of 
 which the contracts furnish the written and un¬ 
 it 
 
I 
 
 answerable proof. Where such arrangements exist 
 the crime cannot be wiped out by the cancellation 
 of the contracts, but a continued recognition of the 
 binding force of such contracts, in the light of the 
 recent decision of the Appellate Court, may create 
 trouble of a kind little dreamed of by those who 
 have permitted themselves to be forced or lulled 
 into them. 
 
 “The fact that laborers have the right to refuse 
 to work for a man who does not employ union labor, 
 or in order to better their condition, or advance 
 their wages, does not authorize the making of a 
 contract under which the employer is compelled to 
 employ only union labor and to discharge non¬ 
 union labor. The rights of the employer and em¬ 
 ployee are and should be synonymous , but em¬ 
 ployees cannot , by combination or union , without 
 committing the crime of conspiracy , force employ¬ 
 ers to agree to employ only union labor. When 
 employer's do become parties to such an agreement 
 they are equally guilty of conspiracy. 
 
 “The opinion of the Appellate Courts should be 
 studied at once by every employer of labor , and 
 when the employer awakes to the situation that he 
 is a party to a criminal conspiracy , the floodgates 
 will open and non-union labor will, I think, re¬ 
 ceive the protection that all of the injunctions and 
 processes of the courts have heretofore been unable 
 to give them.” 
 
 
 15 
 
/ 
 
 3 011 
 
 2 07284681 
 
 The Open Shop Guarantees 
 Industrial Peace and 
 Industrial Freedom. 
 
 Compliance with the provisions- of t 
 court decision published in this leaflet Wi 
 secure industrial peace and industrial freedor 
 
 Employers should adopt the “open sho 
 policy, and put it into force and effect 
 quickly as possible. 
 
 Another duty of the greatest importan 
 devolves on all employers. When reduci 
 the number of workmen, because of the fa 
 ing off in business, they should be loyal 
 the men who have been loyal to them. Yo 
 true and tried friends, good citizens w 
 respect and obey the law, they should ha 
 preference over the anarchists, socialis 
 walking delegates, agitators, trouble makeij 
 who sought to destroy your business, and w 
 are largely responsible for the calamities fro 
 which business men and working men ha 
 suffered. 
 
 Published by the 
 
 EMPLOYERS’ ASSOCIATIO 
 Dayton, Ohio. 
 
 NOTE.—This pamphlet should be read by buj 
 ness men, professional men, and working men. 
 
 16