for whatever reason, is the same as the right of the employer, for whatever reason, to dispense with the services of such employé. It was the legal right of the defendant Adair— however unwise such a course might have been-to discharge Coppage because of his being a member of a labor organization, as it was the legal right of Coppage, if he saw fit to do so -however unwise such a course on his part might have beento quit the service in which he was engaged, because the defendant employed some persons who were not members of a labor organization. In all such particulars the employer and the employé have equality of right, and any legislation that disturbs that equality is an arbitrary interference with the liberty of contract which no government can legally justify in a free land. These views find support in adjudged cases, some of which are cited in the margin. Of course, if the parties by contract fix the period of service, and prescribe the conditions upon which the contract may be terminated, such contract would control the rights of the parties as between themselves, and for any violation of those provisions the party wronged would have his appropriate civil action. And it may be-but upon that point we express no opinion--that in the case of a labor contract between an employer engaged in interstate commerce and his employé, Congress could make it a crime for either party without sufficient or just excuse or notice to disregard the terms of such contract or to refuse to perform it. In the absence, however, of a valid contract between the parties controlling their conduct towards each other and fixing a period of service, it cannot be, we repeat, that an employer is under any legal obligation, against his will, to retain an employé in his personal service any more than an employé

1 People v. Marcus, 185 N. Y. 257; National Protection Assn. v. Cummings, 170 N. Y. 315; Jacobs v. Cohen, 183 N. Y. 207; State v. Julow, 129 Missouri, 163; State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179; Gillespie v. People, 188 Illinois, 176; State v. Kreutzberg, 114 Wisconsin, 530; Wallace v. Georgia, C. & N. Ry. Co., 94 Georgia, 732; Hundley v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 105 Kentucky, 162; Brewster v. Miller's Sons & Co., 101 Kentucky, 268; N. Y. &c. R. R. Co. v. Schaffer, 65 Ohio St. 414; Arthur v. Oakes, 63 Fed. Rep. 310.

can be compelled, against his will, to remain in the personal service of another. So far as this record discloses the facts the defendant, who seemed to have authority in the premises, did not agree to keep Coppage in service for any particular time, nor did Coppage agree to remain in such service a moment longer than he chose. The latter was at liberty to quit the service without assigning any reason for his leaving. And the defendant was at liberty, in his discretion, to discharge Coppage from service without giving any reason for so doing.

As the relations and the conduct of the parties towards each other was not controlled by any contract other than a general agreement on one side to accept the services of the employé and a general agreement on the other side to render services. to the employer-no term being fixed for the continuance of the employment--Congress could not, consistently with the Fifth Amendment, make it a crime against the United States to-discharge the employé because of his being a member of a labor organization.

But it is suggested that the authority to make it a crime for an agent or officer of an interstate carrier, having authority in the premises from his principal, to discharge an employé from service to such carrier, simply because of his membership in a labor organization, can be referred to the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, without regard to any question of personal liberty or right of property arising under the Fifth Amendment. This s ggestion can have no bearing in the present discussion unes the statute, in the particular just stated, is within the meaning of the Constitution a regulation of commerce among the States. If it be not, then clearly the Government cannot invoke the commerce clause of the Constitution as sustaining the indictment against Adair.

Let us inquire what is commerce, the power to regulate which is given to Congress?

This question has been frequently propounded in this court, and the answer has been-and no more specific answer could

well have been given-that commerce among the several States comprehends traffic, intercourse, trade, navigation, communication, the transit of persons and the transmission of messages by telegraph-indeed, every species of commercial intercourse among the several States, but not to that commerce "completely internal, which is carried on between man and man, in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States." The power to regulate interstate commerce is the power to prescribe rules by which such commerce must be governed.1 Of course, as has been often said, Congress has a large discretion in the selection or choice of the means to be employed in the regulation of interstate commerce, and such discretion is not to be interfered with except where that which is done is in plain violation of the Constitution. Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, and authorities there cited. In this connection we may refer to Johnson v. Railroad, 196 U. S. 1, relied on in argument, which case arose under the act of Congress of March 2, 1893, 27 Stat. 531, c. 196. That act required carriers engaged in interstate commerce to equip their cars used in such commerce with automatic couplers and continuous brakes, and their locomotives with driving wheel brakes. But the act upon its face showed that its object was to promote the safety of employés and travelers upon railroads; and this court sustained its validity upon the ground that it manifestly had reference to interstate commerce and was calculated to subserve the interests of such commerce by affording protection to employés and travelers. It was held that there was a substantial connection between the object sought to be attained by the act and the means provided to accomplish that object. So, in regard to Employers' Liabil

1 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283; Almy v. State of California, 24 How. 169; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1, 9, 12; County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347, 356; Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 321, 352; Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197; Employers' Lia bility Cases, 207 U. S. 463.

VOL. CCVIII-12

ity Cases, 207 U. S. 463, decided at the present term. In that case the court sustained the authority of Congress, under its power to regulate interstate commerce, to prescribe the rule of liability, as between interstate carriers and its employés in such interstate commerce, in cases of personal injuries received by employés while actually engaged in such commerce. The decision on this point was placed on the ground that a rule of that character would have direct reference to the conduct of interstate commerce, and would, therefore, be within the competency of Congress to establish for commerce among the States, but not as to commerce completely internal to a State. Manifestly, any rule prescribed for the conduct of interstate commerce, in order to be within the competency of Congress under its power to regulate commerce among the States, must have some real or substantial relation to or connection with the commerce regulated. But what possible legal or logical connection is there between an employé's membership in a labor organization and the carrying on of interstate commerce? Such relation to a labor organization cannot have, in itself and in the eye of the law, any bearing upon the commerce with which the employé is connected by his labor and services. Labor associations, we assume, are organized for the general purpose of improving or bettering the conditions and conserving the interests of its members as wage-earners-an object entirely legitimate and to be commended rather than condemned. But surely those associations as labor organizations have nothing to do with interstate commerce as such. One who engages in the service of an interstate carrier will, it must be assumed, faithfully perform his duty, whether he be a member or not a member of a labor organization. His fitness for the position in which he labors and his diligence in the discharge of his duties cannot in law or sound reason depend in any degree upon his being or not being a member of a labor organization. It cannot be assumed that his fitness is assured, or his diligence increased, by such membership, or that he is less fit or less diligent be

cause of his not being a member of such an organization. It is the employé as a man and not as a member of a labor organization who labors in the service of an interstate carrier. Will it be said that the provision in question had its origin in the apprehension, on the part of Congress, that if it did not show more consideration for members of labor organizations than for wage-earners who were not members of such organizations, or if it did not insert in the statute some such provision as the one here in question, members of labor organizations would, by illegal or violent measures, interrupt or impair the freedom of commerce among the States? We will not indulge in any such conjectures, nor make them, in whole or in part, the basis of our decision. We could not do so consistently with the respect due to a coördinate department of the Government. We could not do so without imputing to Congress the purpose to accord to one class of wage-earners privileges withheld from another class of wage-earners engaged, it may be, in the same kind of labor and serving the same employer. Nor will we assume, in our consideration of this case, that members of labor organizations will, in any considerable numbers, resort to illegal methods for accomplishing any particular object they have in view.

Looking alone at the words of the statute for the purpose of ascertaining its scope and effect, and of determining its validity, we hold that there is no such connection between interstate commerce and membership in a labor organization as to authorize Congress to make it a crime against the United States for an agent of an interstate carrier to discharge an employé because of such membership on his part. If such a power exists in Congress it is difficult to perceive why it might not, by absolute regulation, require interstate carriers, under penalties. to employ in the conduct of its interstate business only members of labor organizations, or only those who are not members of such organizations-a power which could not be recognized as existing under the Constitution of the United States. No such rule of criminal liability as that to which