The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1871-04-15

BUD. II a member Of the Int Union comes TO
SINS city With loans on his card endorsed, can
such end'rseme be transferred toa new
gard, if such member is thrown cut Of work,
and has rot been able to paw back the whole
amount? If not, what can be done NJ:
T. kraternally yours,
N. d. PLATE, Rec See. Union No. 80.
+ Care Of d. Huck, "a Eldridge street, N W
|; Care of D. Huck, "a Eldridge street. NYO
ma D. Plate, Recording Secret Try Union No
L 90
DEAR SIR In answer TO your que stions,
1 LIST, 1t is the duty Of Local Unions 10 lend
Fhelping hand to all If our brother workmen
Who come to this country with caro-, if four
months has not interviewed from la dAssol its
issue. b assie ing all such we promote the
| welflTe Of our craft
zud, An Local Unions muet transfer all
monies unpaid. when granting a new card
j Hoping the above will be satisfactory,
remain yours frsternaly,
J. W. LAvIsE, Iut Pres pro TEN.
] The strike OF Union No. 4 is sustained. This
strike was caused through the introduction Of
the mould. FRED BLEND, Int. Pres.
J. W. LAvINs, LIST Vice-Pres
D. SHKLTER, God Vice.Pree
T. J. BIRcH, Int See
do not consider the strike in CinciuRati at
all unsuitable. The men not having been re-
CURED to work with filler breaker, they should
have d 'msnded higher rate OF prices, II, as
they say, so much time is unnecessarily occu
pied in placing The 6ller in the mould and re-
moving il again. Therefore look at the absur-
dity # the decision in this case. Approving
Of the strike OF Unien No. 4, at the very mo
ment of sending the decision you have informed
Mr.. G Laurence Of Brooklyn, n. Z, there is no
aw prohi biGing the use OF forms, provided the
-egar maker breaks his own her, and ne very
men you have given permission to work with
forms will be called upon to support those who
nsve struck against the very thing the men iu
Brooklyn you have allowed to work. This is a
poor way Of defining and ministering Law. La~
cannos be made to work we'll by any such
means Ether all should he allowed to work
Nth forms or none Tue former plan would be
the most advisable course to pursue, and aaVe
he trade from conflict Of most dangerous
nature. s. SoLoMos, Asst. Int Sec
OTTAWA, ILL.,, March 10, 1871
In reply 10 Mr. ;. Solomon, | will state
ful. coincide with rim that We should admin
ister law without favor or psrtiaity, and in my
answer to the BT10kl yn unlOu, Informed them
that there il nothing in our Consti .ution pro-
hibiting our members fr5m working with the
mould provided the cigar maker breaAs bis
owl filters, but DO fiud precedence for my de-
cision 70 Union No. 4. | refer t. the strike OF
Baltimore Union No. !. They also struck
against the mould and were sustained by all the
members Of he Board. Mr. s. Solomon voted
TO sustain the strike, 60 l was governed by our
decision ID the strike of Union No. /.
wv. LAvNE, Tut. Pres pro TEN.
BRooKLYK, n. Y, March I'll, 1871.
To The President Of the Cigar Makers IuterGa-
tional Union.
SIR: / am instructed by Union No 81 to ask
whether it is contrary to the laws OF the Inter
national Union for a cigar maker to work with
Ihe forms, provided he makes his own punches.
If possible | should like TO have your answer
before Saturday. As we have a meeting N the
evening OF that day.
Iremain yours fraternally,
G. LAURENCE,
Cor Sec. Union No. S7,lzs Douglas street.
Mr.. C. LAURENCE, Cor Sec. Union No. 81.
DEAR Sir In ansser to your question would
state that there is no Law prohibiting the use Of
the mould provided the cigar maker himself
breaks the filler. The Board has sustained
Union when the members refused work with
one. Wishing you success,
remain yours frAternallY,
J. W LAvISE, Int See. pro tom.
LAFAYETTE, IND, April 8, ls7l.-Please pub
lsh the incloeed letter IN the Cigar Makers
Column, aud obAge
Yours Respectfully,
K. H. MARKLLY, Ger sec ~
DANvnLL, April Z, 1871
To the Ohfccrs and Members Of Union No 80
| indianapolis, Ind
oIRs | noticed your answer to nv SO called
insulting letter in the ADVOCATE of March 18th
hereby wisn 70 state to your honorable body
that ohv intended to give insult for insult, and
Shat nobody i requested to wear the shoe unless
| it fits.
You state that At the time left your CITY
which was April the II, 1870 the ass s-ment
of 90 cents per week was suspended aud there
fore your secre tary did not endorse the 50 cents
on my card. There Is no sense in such state
ment, and it is not correct.
Your seer taTy must acknowledge that | paid
him every cent he had charged against me, and
that left bill wth him against the union for
s. 50, which sent to me two months a ter
| had left you city II | was still indebted to
YOUR union after I left it, IL was certainly not
nv fault. and therefore claim that YOU had no
right To circular me.
Had your secretary al any time informed me
OF mi take which be I'D made in my accoun t
Qhrough private letter. would have for warded
the amount TO him willingly.
10 8
years, and don't hinh that ever proved my
sell MAJ that deserved being circulated to he
craft 10 make ne paw my honest debts
Your union has crcularrd several ~ en- 10 nv
&, rain knowledge before this that we're not in
Iebtcd to you.
If YOU desire any proof as to the so called in
suitiug assertions, ~hicn l made in my letter,
can refer yuu to your actions and YOUR oks
Your honorable body has found bill of five
dollars against me for hurting our t. nder feel
ngs. ! would like 20 know If YOU are gong
to pay my Doctors bill for injuries received by
your cruel hands. Hoping this will calm your
Indignant spirits,
remain respectfully yours,
[ HESRY UIyMAE.
DEs MONIES, April 10. ls7l.-J. Ward ha,
. union He claims to have lust 6nished bis time
st Beaver Dam, Wis. Any union having charge
against the said person i'll please prefer th,
same within thirty days from date.
also take this method Of requesting al
= answer fIom St. Louis union in regard TO
travelling card which was sent TO them belong
iIg to o. +. Johnson, with over $40 90 endorse,
thereon; for which amonnt said union mad
itself responsible, and as have slre ady writte