ISN'T GREED GREATER CRIMINAL THAN WANT?
William Wood's trial has placed certain instructive facts before the
Dynamite was "planted" at Lawrence, in the interest of the miU owners.
It was "planted" in exactly the same spirit that it has been used on the other
side in labor wars, for the purpose of injuring the enemy. Human nature
is human nature, whether in blue jeans or broadcloth.
If the charge that a clique of mill owners' satellites had "planted"
dynamite to discredit strikers for a living wage had come from labor lead
ers only, many persons would not have-believed it. Nobody, can doubt it
If such tactics were adopted at Lawrence, what reason have we-to doiihti
"that similar tactics have been used in other industrial struggles; thatrmanjr
riots and shootings and other acts of violence, ascribed to strikers or-sym.-
pathizers with strikers, have been deliberately fomented by the other side
with a view to discrediting labor and supplying pretexes for summoning
The Wood trial is, therefore, of great importance as a revelation of
strike-fighting methods, quite apart from any question of personaUguilt.
Two wrongs do not make a right. But we know now from court r,eqs
ords in a conspicuous case, that blame is not one-sided; and that the Mt
Namara school of lawbreakers have at least the excuse of great-provocation,
intensified by the fact that ordinarily the processes of justice have
been less open to the poor and humble than to the rich and strong. . -
Humanly, if not legally, have we not the-right to expect of men who
are well-to-do and comfortable, who have had the benefits of education,
refining influences and high social position, a finer standard of conduct than
from men made desperate by want and by a consciousness of weakness ex
cept as they combined to exert force?
As between, say, a McNamara and a Pittman, of whom ought we to
expect the higher standards?
Want and greed are hard drivers. But greed makes want. Isn't greed,
therefore, the greater criminal?
IT PROMOTES LAW BUSINESS.
How ridiculous, and of what
earthjy use is a U. S. supreme court,
a court established to decide upon
the constitutionality of legislation,
that reverses itself?
One year ago, the U. S. supreme
court decided fiat a patent owner
could place restrictions on articles
used on hispatented article. The
court's vote was Justices McKenna,
Lurton, Holmes and Vandevanter
against White, Hughes and Lamar.
Later, Justice Day, returning to
work, and Justice Pitney, being new
ly appointed, unite with McKenna,
Hughes and Lamar and, with their
majority of one, hand down a decis
ion to the effect that a patent owner
cannot place restrictions on articles
used on his patented article.
Such is the effect of these two de
cisions, although the court attempts
to present some distinctions as a
basis for reversing itself.
Our constitutional rights depend
not only upon a majority of one in
a vote of nine but upon whether all
the judges are on the job. If such a
situation in respect of the highest
and final (?) tribunal of justice isijt
laughable as well as dangerous, what
xml | txt