Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1886-10-10

]
claimed that the expression that Glidden
is said to have made use of, or the other
members of the committee are said to
have made use of. To The Darlington
Publishing Company, does not admit of
the construction that they intended to
make a money demand, but that they
referred to the general course of the
NewS boycott, and the effect of it, and
with the intent to bring home to The
Darlington Publishing Company in
strong light the fact that the Ne,rs had
| been obliged to surrender, and that there
was no intent or design on the part of
this committee meeting with the mana
| gers of The Darlington Publishing Com
pany to say to The Darlington Publishing
Company, that 1--WE will adopt the spe-
ciiic means employed to bring the Nc,rS
to terms; but that by the pressure that
we shall bring upon You, in such a way
as we shall hereafter determine. you also
will be brought to terms" And that,
| therefore, the statement Glidden or
the committee made that Il. would
treat The arlington Publishing COmpany
rs the NctrS had been treated, had refer
ence to the result and the effect of the
boycott, rather than the specific means
by which it was pursued and carried into
effect.
You will weigh these conflicting theo-
ries. gentlemen, and say whether it was
really intended on the part of Glidden
and his associates to make this money
demand of The Darlington Publishing
Company, as a condition upon which
they would cease their demands for en-
ployment at the hands of The Darlington
Publishing Company, and cease from the
threatened boycott.
1t is also alleged on the part of the
defense, the accused here, that they had
right in the case of the NeWS boycott,
to demand Of the Nc,rS the payment of
their expenses, and therefore they had
legal right to demand that money. am
bound to say to you, gentlemen, that if
there was a contract existing between
the Union and the Ncrs in reference to
the employment of Union men, or in
reference to any other legitimate and
| legal object, and that contract was broken,
then it was entirely lawful for these ac-
Cused parties to say to the Ne,rs, that
"we must he paid the expenses that we
incurred by the breaking of that con-
tract" And under these circumstances
there would have been nothing unlawful
in the demand for money as against the
NeWS, and therefore they say that the
suggestion that Gldlcn and his associates
made that the COHrirr would be treated
as the NerS had been treated had no
possible reference to a money demand
because the conditions. so far as a money
demand is concerned. were essentially
different in reference to the NrrS than
those in reference to the COWier
These are the two conflicting theories,
gentlemen. You must take them and
determine from the evidence in the case
whether the State has satisfactorily
shown to you beyond n reasonable doubt,
that these men intended to make a money
demand for the expenses of the boycott
as against the courier. There is some
other evidence claimed by the State which
tends to show that the money demand
was intended to be pressed as against the
CoUrier. | have forgotten for the mo-
ment the names of the witnesses, gentle
men, but you will remember the sub
stance of the testimony, if you do not
remember the names of the parties who
testified to it.
There is nothing else, gentlemen, in
this case, except so far as the alleged
threats and intimdations are concerncd:
and believe there were no threats in
the case, and no intimidations in the case,
or at least none prominent in the case
except those that have reference to the
withdrawal of patronage, and threatened
ruin to the business Of the corporation,
and the threatended oppression of the
employees of this corporation.
have stated all that can usefuIly say
to you upon these topics.
Gentlemen, you may retire and consid-
er your verdict.
A FAVORlTE.
, One cold night last winter iumped on