The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1871-08-05
THE CIGAR MAKERS.
w- WILL unions desiring changes In the address Of
correspond secretaIee please state the Of re
former secretary.
CohciAl from the President ofthe 9. W

C0ficiAl from the President OF the G. I. "
TOLEDO, ONO, June 26, 1871.
AK. Hesse. Sc. Union No. "A. Columbus, o.
Dear Sir,-In answer to your articles OF
March Is, 1871, ard March ~, 1871, in the case
Of Columbus Union vs. Cleveland URion, you
charge Cleveland Union with violating section
| Of Article 10 Of the international Constitu-
ton, by admitting one Martin B. Doty to men,
bership in Cleveland Union, without first cir
culating him TO the trade, as required by the
section referred 10 above. Said Martin B.
Dotv was under charges to Columbus Union to
the amount Of thirty dollars (s39.00), for work
ing ia an unfair shop, under the jurisdiction OF
Columbus Union. Columbus Union now claims
said amount from Cleveland Union, and refers
the matter to the Executive Board Of the H.
ternational Union, and asks .t-E .ue cisim By
allowed
.. gsn WHY .p- sraot III the 1aads u
t-4E 1--we .z-i, &. s-er's tbst yu- EarGin
W pc.v vas rt rr-l in 1uIair STOP, under
F. ths juf,siicG.- u Columbus Union. Said
bow was under charges to Cleveland Union to
4 e amount Of $l7.O0 Cleveland Uuion re-
quested Columbus Uuion to collect the same
and forward it on to the Cleveland Union
The secretary OF the Columbus Union replied,
telling them that Doty was at work in an I'M
fair shop; therefore, couli not collect the
\ amount required. Some time afseI that Dotv
sent the SIT 90 to Cleveland Union, and in
return received a clear card, which was for
warded on to be deposited in Columbus Union,
as Doty was still at work under The iurisdicti IN
Of Columbus Union. Columbus Union, after
receiving Dotys card, wrote to Cleveland union
demanding the thirty dollars claim they held
against Doty, on the grounds that be was ad-
mtted TO membership TO Cleveland union, con-
trary to law.
| Cleveland union refused to pay the claim, on
the ground that they received notice from
Columbus union previous to admitting Doty,
/ that they columbus union) held no charges
against Doty, and had no jurisdiction il his
case and Cleveland union thought he (D0ty)
was not under charges to any other union ;
and, therefore, admitted bin, without first circu
atiLg him to the trade. Cleveland union
positively claim that Columbus union notified
them that they held no charges against Dot,
but when requested to forward said notice TO
the Board, they claim it was destroyed along
with other papers that they considered value
\ less.
| The secretary Of Columbus union, in letter to
| the Executive Board dated June 90 1871
positively denies Of giving any ouch notice 70
the Cleveland union, but says that Cleveland
union made demand on Columbus union TO
collect $l700 from Doty, whereupon he re-
Piled that Columbus union cound make no
demand on DOty for the money unless ne ap-
piled for membership, and would then be cir
culared, and Cleveland union could then submit
their claim for payment.
Cleveland union, not producing the notice
from Columbus union, referred to above, and
admitting Doty contrary to the provisions OF
section | OF Article 10 Of Constitution, in force
in 1870 lat which time Doty was admitted into
Cleveland union l therefore decide that
Cleveland union s responsible to Columbus
union, or any other union holding charges
against Dotv for tie amount Of their claim
and Cleveland union is hereby ordered to paw
the same -Fraternaliy yours,
FRFD. BLEND, Int. Pres.
OTTAWA, Ill, June "a, 1S7l.--Approved BY
G. McLAvIEE, Int Vice Pres
BUFFALO, July /, lS7l.-Approved by DAVID
SHELTER, I'd Vice-President.
PHILA. Pa. F5uly s, l57l.-On account Of the
scarcity Of genuine evidence produced by both
Columbus and Cleveland unions, and of the
conflicting character Of that which is produced,
find myself unable to conscientiOusly cast my
vote for either coavicting or acquiring Cleve-
land union. do, therefore, recommend that
the case be referred TO the Boston Convention
for adOs me & and in the meantime, if posi-
Bile, more evidence be procured
THos. ] BIRCH Int. Sec.
TOLEDO, OHIo, July 10, lS7l.-The above de-
csion ID approved.
FRED. BLEND, Int Pres.