Morning journal and courier., 1886-07-17
THE CONSPIRACY CASE.
fcoNcLUpED FROM FOURTH PAGE.1


 and these men to break up the COURIER simply for this reason and no other? Suppose you belong in Waterbury and are in the milk business. You have q man in your employ who is @ capable man but does not want to belong to the Knights of Labor. A committee of the Knights of Labor call on sGa sSs and %an say sna yGf @n'' doa discharge 1s will boycott you and every person who takes youf milk until you discharge that man. The Knights of Labor have 10, ,000 against you, and you might well stop your busi- ness at once. Is this 1egala Is it right to ruin your business in this wayf You would say it was prelude to another French reve- lution; you would have to submit or your business would be destroyed. They say they don't want to ruin you, only to make you discharge your men and submit to them. It is my right to transact my own law ful business in 8 lawful way, and Glidden, McNamara or any other person has no right to say they prohibit me. These con- spirators say they made no threats. Where did Glidden ever offer any evidence to up-
 hold this? These men say, as has been
 proven, you must submit or be boyeotted.
 What have we here but fear and intimida-
 tion? Do you suppose these men are going to take their advertisements out of the COURIER
 because of what these men, Glidden, McNa- mara or others say, or because of these circu- larss No, but because of the fear they have of these threats and of intimidation. Is this legala I say gentlemen, there is no such theory as liberty left when body of men can con- ment, or to ruin, if possible, a firms busi
 ness. They say distinctly we will carry on the boycott against you of the COURIER as
 we did against the News. You shall be sub-
 jected to the same penalty The COURIER says we protest; we will retain our men.
 (Here MT. Carrington's letter was read in
 which he said we expect fair treatment; we
 do not think our men have been fairly treat ed; an injury to one is an injury to all, etc. )
 Was it right for these men to attempt to
 break up the business of the COURIER for this reason and no other? Such a demand from committee as was made of the COURIER is fitting prelude to a French revolution. To comply with such 8 demand you would have to surrender your manhood. But they say we did not intend to destroy your busi- ness, only so far as to compel you to yield.
 My friend says it is purely a question of personal liberty. So it is; it is question whether I have right to- trans act my business in lawful way as I see fit. It
 is right in which neither Glidden nor Mo
 Namara have any right to interfere. It is
 an utterly unlawful and detestable thing
 which these men conspired to do. If you
 don't do as we say, they say, we will com
 bine against you and smash you. When did
 Glidden advance any argument why boycott
 ting should be submitted toa His only ar
 gument was brute force. This was his argu-
 ment to Keller, so to Mendel & Freedman
 and so on. Do you propose to tell me that
 these men were argued with as to taking out their advertisements? No, it was
 nothing but threats and intimidation that
 were used-threats and intimidation. So we
 say that conspiracy to break up a mans
 business because he will not stop from doing
 what he has perfect legal right to do is
 criminal conspiracy. And l say it
 is utterly impossible for society
 to exist on any other theory than the exter-
 imitation of boycotting. Shall turn MT.
 Loomis out of my office if they should come
 to me and say if you don't turn him out we are 10, 900 strong and we shall boycott yous If they can make such demands people will
 come to force and violence sooner or later.
 Society shall become body of tramps, hay
 ing no regard for law or justice. When you say organized labor demands such things I say for Gods sake don't dishonor organized
 labor in that way. So we say unless these men can be restrained who so disorganize so- ciety, there is no peace or safety.
 We'll, the accused all belonged to the union.
 Bertha Palm has testified hearing them say that the COURIER must pay back the 50 cents q week assessed against each member of the union for boycott expenses The boycott ex- penses were to be forced from the COURIER. MT. Skinner testified to what the man Kidd said on the subject. Kidd says we shall not do with the COURIER as with the News. We shall not submit to arbitration with the CoUR- TER. This time we shall exact from theCoURIER the expenses of the boycott. The demand from the News was $500 for the boycott ex- penses. That's queer condition of things. They may compel you to submit to their die tation, and when they have got you on your kness compel you to pay the boycott ex- penses. They made that demand on the News office. Would to God Prof. Farnam. had stood up against the unjust demand, as he had it in his power to do. Did Glidden or Mulcahy at the conference rise up and ob ject to exacting penalty? They did not. Their conduct stamps their crime as utterly detestable. Glidden doesn't protest, nor Mulcahy. The committee acts as 8 unit. The case of the COURIER is parallel. Isn't it committee of labor unions that runs this boycott? Get out from the unclean thing, ye that would be absolved from it, if you do not want to be linked in as part of the de- testable thing. What did the committee on the News committee exacts They said you shall pay $500 and shall be a just share of the boycott ex- psnses. Glidden brought this ultimation to the News. (To MT. Platt) Guion so testified that he recognized Glidden as the man. Pro- ceeding MT. filling said furthermore later there was an arbitration agreement signed by Glidden and by McNamara, by Lane and Kidd. What did this arbitration say? It provides for the payment by the News of the boycott expenses. Indemnity is asked forSthe boycott. They pursued the News to the bit ter end and only failed to extort the indem- nifty because the board of arbitration had the manliness to refuse it. Then Glidden said we have cleaned out the News by the boy colt, the accused said we shall treat you as we did the News. The case is parallel. When l they told MT. Darlington, MT. Baldwin and l MT. Pratt that they should treat the CoUR- TER the same as tley did the News. When you find the same Typographical union, the | same Glidden, the same walking delegate, the l same committee, the same organization, is mt it | clearly part of the same plan as that of last l Marchs The speaker here proceeded to define | boycotting as meaning, according to the | authorities, to put one outside the pale of the | society in which he lives. We say we have | proved beyond reasonable doubt that they l of the boycott. The case is entirely parallel | with the News case. There is no explanatory | evidence that conflicts with it. It is criminal, | they say, to combine to destroy 8 business. If one surrenders his manhood he surrenders | his liberty, and then money is extOrted from him wher they have him subdued. Perhaps they plead poverty as an excuse for demand ing it. Perhaps they say, we have been to $500 expense. Perhaps it is weak man who yields because he is hurt so bad and is nearly ruined and says, let up; we'll pay it. But when man says, have right to trans sct my business in legal way and says will not yield to discharge faithful men in ny employ-I will not yield to injustice or they say, when we have breed him to his knees to beg pardon ye will demand a penalty. Is his lawa The speaker cited Ar. Tarbox O. Lynn. who said he would con- inue in business until he lost every custom T before yielding to unjust demands, and would then remove to some country where e could breathe the free air of liberty once nore.
 How can you gentlemen avoid coming to he conclusion that ths.' intended to demand
 penalty for the exT sst3 of the boycott2 'hese men raise their double-bal relied gun nd take deliberate aim at you and fire and liss you. They assail these merchants, who re tormented with them. They present no rgument save that of threat and intimida- on. They say we are ten thousand strong nd take the consequences. But when the ase comes into court they say, oh, we didn't lean anything; we merely told the men to ike out their advertisements or take the Is there any doubt of the 1ccess of the boycott on the News2 Is it ny palliation to say aimed straight to shoot
 man, intending to kill him, but missed lm2 They attarnnfad 6o dastrnv the husi-