William Adair v. United States
Decision Date | 27 January 1908 |
Docket Number | No. 293,293 |
Citation | 52 L.Ed. 436,28 S.Ct. 277,208 U.S. 161 |
Parties | WILLIAM ADAIR, Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Benjamin D. Warfield and Henry L. Stone for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 162 intentionally omitted] Attorney General Bonaparte and Mr. William R. Harr for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 163-166 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:
This case involves the constitutionality of certain provisions of the act of Congress of June 1st, 1898 (30 Stat. at L. 424, chap. 370, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3205) concerning carriers engaged in interstate commerce and their employees.
By the 1st section of the act it is provoided:
The 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th sections relate to the settlement, by means of arbitration, of controversies concerning wages, hours of labor, or conditions of employment, arising between a carrier subject to the provisions of the act and its employees, which seriously interrupt, or threaten to interrupt, the business of the carrier. Those sections prescribe the mode in which controversies may be brought under the cognizance of arbitrators, in what way the arbitrators may be designated, and the effect of their decisions. The first subdivision of § 3 contains a proviso 'that no employee shall be compelled to render personal service without his consent.'
The 11th section relates to the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators.
By the 12th section the act of Congress of October 1st, 1888 [25 Stat. at L. 501, chap. 1063], creating boards of arbitrators or commissioners for settling controversies and differences between railroad corporations and other common carriers engaged in interstate or territorial transportation of persons or property and their employees, was repealed.
The 10th section, upon which the present prosecution is based, is in these words:
'That any employers subject to the provisions of this act, and any officer, agent, or receiver of such employer, who shall require any employee, or any person seeking employment, as a condition of such employment, to enter into an agreement, either written or verbal, not to become or remain a member of any labor corporation, association, or organization; or shall threaten any employee with loss of employment, or shall unjustly discriminate against any employee because of his membership in such a labor corporation, association, or organization; who shall require any employee or any person seeking employment, as a condition of such employment, to enter into a contract whereby such employee or applicant for employment shall agree to contribute to any fund for charitable, social, or beneficial purposes; to release such employer from legal liability for any personal injury by reason of any benefit received from such fund beyond the proportion of the benefit arising from the employer's contribution to such fund; or who shall, after having discharged an employee, attempt or conspire to prevent such employee from obtaining employment, or who shall, after the quitting of an employee, attempt or conspire to prevent such employee from obtaining employment, is hereby declared to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction in the district in which such offense was committed, shall be punished for each offense by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars.'
It may be observed in passing that while that section makes it a crime against the United States to unjustly discriminate against an employee of an interstate carrier because of his being a member of a labor organization, it does not make it a crime to unjustly discriminate against an employee of the carrier because of his not being a member of such an organization.
The present indictment was in the district court of the United States for the Eastern district of Kentucky against the defendant, Adair.
The first count alleged
The specific charge in that count was 'that said William Adair, agent and employee of said common carrier and employer. as aforesaid, in the district aforesaid, on and before the 15th day of October, 1906, did unlawfully and unjustly discriminate against said O. B. Coppage, employee, as aforesaid, by then and there discharging said O. B. Coppage from such employment of said common carrier and employer, because of his membership in said labor organization, and thereby did unjustly discriminate against an employee of a common carrier and employer engaged in interstate commerce because of his membership in a labor organization, contrary to the forms of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.'
The second count repeated the general allegations of the first count as to the character of the business of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and the relations between that corporation and Adair and Coppage. It charged 'that said William Adair, in the district aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this court, agent and employee of said common carrier and employer aforesaid, on and before the 15th day of October, 1906, did unlawfully threaten said O. B. Coppage, employee as aforesaid, with loss of employment, because of his membership in said labor organization, contrary to the forms of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.'
The accused, Adair, demurred to the indictment as insufficient in law, but the demurrer was overruled. After reviewing the authorities, in an elaborate opinion, the court held the 10th section of the act of Congress to be constitutional. 152 Fed. 737. The defendant pleaded...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sei Fujii v. State
...78 L.Ed. 940) has steadily rejected the due process philosophy enunciated in the Adair-Coppage line of cases. (Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 28 S.Ct. 277, 52 L.Ed. 436.) In doing so it has consciously returned closer and closer to the earlier constitutional principle that states hav......
-
State Bd. of Dry Cleaners v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners
...however, no longer adheres to the constitutional doctrine expressed in the Lochner and similar cases, such as Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 28 S.Ct. 277, 52 L.Ed. 436; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 17 S.Ct. 427, 41 L.Ed. 832; and Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 35 S.Ct. 240, 5......
-
Spierling v. First American Home Health Services, Inc.
...the Death of John F. Kennedy, 1963 (1994); Michael Novak, The Guns of Lattimer (1996). 16. Summarizing Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 28 S.Ct. 277, 52 L.Ed. 436 (1908) and Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 35 S.Ct. 240, 59 L.Ed. 441 (1915), both finding unconstitutional statutes prohibi......
-
Balsavage v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
...terms and conditions under which this ability is to be exercised. See U.S. Const. Art. I, sec. 10; Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 172, 179, 28 S.Ct. 277, 279, 282, 52 L.Ed. 436 (1908), overruled on other grounds, Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 177, 187, 61 S.Ct. 845, 849, 8......
-
Restricting the freedom of contract: a fundamental prohibition.
...overruled in part by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). (45.) Lochner, 198 U.S. at 64. (46.) Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908), overruled in part by Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 177 (1941). (47.) Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), overruled in......
-
Vectoral Federalism
...(concluding that the Article I powers should be given a broad and flexible interpretation). [77]. See, e.g., Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 178 (1908) (refusing to recognize federal power over local union activities with effects on interstate commerce); United States v. E.C. Knight C......
-
Chapter 9
...History 118, 118-119 (1976).[144] . Wood, A Treatise on the Law of Master and Servant, 134 (2d Ed. 1886).[145] . Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 28 S. Ct. 277, 52 L. Ed. 436 (1908).[146] . Id., 208 U.S. at 174-175.[147] . West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S. Ct. 578, 81 L.......
-
Table of Cases
...Texas, 2006 WL 1594037 (2006) (not reported in S.W.3d), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 129, 166 L.Ed.2d 35 (2006), 1284 Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 28 S.Ct. 277, 52 L.Ed. 436 (1908), 440, Adams, United States v., 343 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003), 733 Adams v. Robertson, 520 U.S. 83, 117 S.C......