Free Speech and Labor Strife
Neelley v. Farr – Colorado, 1916 (158 P. 458); State v. Kahn – Montana 1919 (182 P. 107); State v. Dingman – Idaho, 1923 (219 P. 760)
Kansas-style industrial conciliation in the Rockies
People v. United Mine Workers of America – Colorado, 1921 (201 P. 54)
| “There can be no free, open, and fair election as contemplated by the Constitution where private industrial corporations so throttle public opinion, deny the free exercise of choice by sovereign electors, dictate and control all election officers, prohibit public discussion of public questions, and imperially command what citizens may and what citizens may not, peacefully and for lawful purposes, enter upon election or public territory.” – Justice _, in Neelley
“A large body of the so-called strikers still remained in the county in segregated camps engaged in intimidating those employed at the mines who had taken their places. … [It[ is plain that anybody could enter each camp for any purpose whose mission was not one of intimidation. What was wrong about this action of the coal companies?” – Justice _ Gabbert (dissenting), in Neelley
“The purposes of the IWW are a part of the current history of the day, and of the times. … [S]tandard dictionaries … as well as the courts, characterize ths organization as one advocating the doctrine of crime, sabotage violence, and unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial and political reform.” - Justice _, in Dingman
“A business by circumstance and in its nature may rise from a private to a public concern, … and since the decision of the Morgan case … the rapid development of the relations of the coal miners, the coal operators, and the public have produced a situation very different from that which then existed. … In modern life, heat means coal.” – Justice _, in UMW |
EMPIRE OF LAWS - The Legal History of the 50 American States > 9. ROCKY MOUNTAIN LEGAL HISTORY > 9.2. The Progressive Era (1900-1930) > 9.2.1 Rocky Mountains (1900-1930): Water Law >