The examiner., 1886-02-13

he is outraged we have the manhood to aG' init 1t. We have done both in the matters of General Kellogg and Mayor Kendrick.
 Equal and exact justice" is our motto. Kellogg has won. Kendrick will win. Mark the prediction. ;" 5a
 It is indeed queer how distorted become some mems views, especially when they look cross-eyed after the mighty dollar, in comparison with their ordinary professions, when they talk for talks sake, either in church or on the street. A few days since | HE EXAMINER man called on a reputed capitalist, an officer of the Waterbury Buckle company, and former alder man of disputatious proclivities, to get his favor for HE EXAMINER, and, If possible, his subscription for year. No impolite allu- sion was made in his case to the aristocracy of Hillside avenue, the Willow street $10, 900 drain, the American Suspender company, (now dead), nor his recent suit with Judge Kellogg, in which he "got left" All this sore way of reaching him was avoided The reporter was all smiles. He told the ex-alderman that he regarded him as a friend of labor-Heaven will perhaps par don the suggestion-and that he ought to subscribe for THE EXAMINER. It was sug gested further that such subscription might snow sympathy between capital and labor, and really become in the end a dividend paying enterprise. The capitalist listened. He was cold as ice. De Long never in his Arctic explorations saw such chilliness, and the Polaris, though abandoned, never ex- perienced such cold. Finally the "boss" made answer as follows: ''My objection to your paper is that it encourages ir the la boring man hope for higher wages than he gets" "But if he does not get enough now," queried the reporter, "to eke out a living, ought he not at least get a day's pay somewhat in proportion to the dividends declared by the company which he serves?" The capitalist eveded this question by citing the instance of two companies which had recently discharged their hands at ordinary wages for those whom they could hire cheaper. The motto of these men after all seems to be, Italians and Chinese, if American laborers will not work for us and starve." We subm1t-the learned Labor Bureau commissioners fantastic report not withstanding capital hates labor and is bound to thrive even if labor starves. There is no equality in this thing.
 Last Friday the ''celebrated case" of Ex-Mayor Kendrick aud the one who wants aiimony and counsel fees, came up before Judge Stoddard for hearing on some legal bubbles. We will not attempt to give legal description of them, for they were mostly chaff. Judge Harrison (forgetful
 
 Sam. Hague in Hartford), asked the court that ''all allegations of her past life, before marriage, be explained" In other words, he wished to strike out ali of Mayer Ken drick's cross bill. This the court refused to do, and said that Eff what was alleged was true. it was a fraudulent contract" MT. Harrison was little non-plussed at this remark, but he said that he "wanted "an allowment for counsel fees" He fixed his price at $10O. States Attorney Terry did not consider his services worth that sum, but suggested $25 or $30. The motion for alimony for Mrs. K. per week, Lynde Harrison said he "would not press at pres ent until he heard from his clientn This was a relief all around. Judge Stoddard however, said that, "at present he would allow neither counsel fee or alimony, for, as this case has been pending nearly year, it ought to be tried and disposed of at once, and he was unwilling, by an allowance, to offer premium for delay" Thus ended the lesson, of which the reporters have made so much and the New York dalies such a stir. The question occurs, why cannot one be allowed to try one's case in the court and not in the newspapers There is every reason why litigants should have their rights Tn court alone. If the reporter of THE EXAMINER in the matter in question wished to publish as gossip what is we'll known, he would certainly say that, from what he gleans, Ex=Mayor Kendrick is right, and that the woman he married by mistake is not only unworthy of him, but that, if he will consult Sam. Hague and others, he may find that she really told him the truth on her seperation when she said "There is no need of divorce, for I have been married before, and my husband is living, and l have not been divorced"