The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1872-06-08

employ, gwUre That ms WSS Pfw~~s ~ ~ ~
interview referred TO by MIR. Bouton, corner
Of 18th and State streets, and that DR.
Parker did mot say that unless the demands
Of this men werecomphed with water would
rum and grass grow IN me !o0naFy. Ar
Anthony-''D0 you know Mho made use 0t
the exprsssion q Ana. Yea 4 SAN 50
myself 1 stated that water would run and
uass Rrow before / would work tyr him
again and meant it.
Peter Baden, who was also present Al the
time, said 81 heard I'll the cOnyersatlOn
ME-. Parker never made use Of such an en-
preston"
Christian Barsen testified that he Waa
present ut the time referred to by Peterson,
the periured Scab, who Swore that Parker
threatened to cut his head OF /; what he did
say was he ought to have . head put on
hIm.
Eric Oleson, also testified 70 the same,
and stated that Peterson once belonged 70
the Union, but had gone back ON it that
Parker told hun for going back ON has oath
and the Union, he ought 70 have head put
I y s,% ps,,sr. "a. III. next witness; knew
some Of the men present who had worked
for Mr.. BouTOn was foreman OF Messrs.
Atkinson a burgess shop; they worked
four or five days hal to lay them on, be-
cause they were boutons men.
The Court SAID he dId not believe the
line Of testimony was admissible. II MIR.
Bouton had done anything outzlde IT the
case he was amenable 10 the Law.
Mir. Anthony stated that the men were
thrown out Of employment at Mr.. BoutonS
request. He would trace Dir. BontOn from
Fifteenth street all over thus town, anu show
that he covered good deal OF ground
The Court reiterated that ne aId not
think the testimony admissible.
Henry Ruthgalt was sworn had been ala
iron moider for IL years had WorKed for
Holmes g. Platt, both as jOurneyman and
foreman several of the men who had
worked Tor Bouton came to get work sew
eral Of them were employed under hcutious
names discharged them a. SOON A. their
names were known, under Instructions.
THE ARGUMENT FOB THE DKFkNcE.
The argument then proceeded. AIr.
Anthony said no lntImAtlOn had been gwen
Vi the ground upon winch the prisoner
were held. Crimes were dehnsd by Law,
and In order to convict party he must be
. brought within the pale OF the statute. Of
what crime are the prisoners guilty! lie
had investigated the statute with care. The
prisoners were charged with a violation
of Chapter 80, Section ~, of the state
Statutea
The counsel read the section referred TO,
and commented upon it.
He said they mad not combined for the
, purpose stated in the section. They had
! not combined for the purpose Of interfering
, with tins property OF another. The COM
,, plainant must prove that an agreement had
Ueen made between himself and his men I;
, and broken up by the latter. 1t had been
/ q matter of surprise to him that no wit
ness had been brought to show that the
agreement, if any, had been broken up by
tine prisoners. VIM. A. Parker was not
I present 81 the interview with Mr. BOuton,
IN February last. MIR. Bouton was mis-
taken in regard to that.
There was no proof to show that Mr..
. Parker had committed any crime what
/. ever. Mr.. Lynch had been discharged.
i MIR. Haggerty and MIR. Baden were out
: Of the question altogether; there was no
q evidence that they were concerned IN the
: case.
i; Labor, he sal 4, sells in this country. Mr.
. Bouton might IA well try to convict q man
E who offered his (Bouton's) men more wages
! to get them away, IS a enn@pira'N- i-+~----
| Lng with business.
. II was clearly shown that the men did
D not combine, and therefore they did not
! come within the pale of the statute. Men
could combine for any lsudable purpose /;
the molders did not form their Union for
; the sole purpose of controlling Mr. Bouton .
shop. They had never entered into any
conspiracy. They had q right to combine
and demand the highest wages and further
their interests, the same As combinations Of
merchants and others.
Mr. Bouton showed the old doctrine Of
. human depravity, when he showed vindict-
lveness. When the Court had refused to
convict the prisoners upon q charge Of va
grancy, then, now Mr.. Bouton endeavors
TO persecute them again.
No crime had been committed, md he
therefore asked for the discharge of the
prisoners.
THE OTHER SIDE.
Mr.. Stackpole said he would not ask that
the prisoners be held, unless he honestly
believed that they should ben The coun-
sci tor the prisoners had endeavored to foist
upon the court side issue, by reading the
, articles Of organization of the Iron Mold
ers Union. But It wouldn't 70 down the
document wasn't IN evidence, and therefJ IRE
the counsels dodge would not work. The
counsel had brought up the vAgrancy case
In his argument, after the court had ruled
1t out Ia the course of the examination.
Parker and Haggerty had been on the
guard at BOuton's snop. This showed the
combination. The counsel read the section
ON which the prisoners were arrested, and
asserted that they had combined, and used
threats against Mr.. Bouton. He asked
that all the accused be held.
THE DECISION.
The Court stated that the case va inn
Portant, as referred to by the counsel for
the defence. He would not review the
testimony Of MIR. Bouton and MIR Peter
son-he would hold all the parties so that
the upper court could decide On SO impor-
tAnt matter. He reluctantly held the de-
PENDANTS, but believed it necessary in order
that higher tribunal might adjudicats
upon the case. He would therefore TX their
.-bal ut 500.