Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1888-07-21
PUT UP OR SHUT UP
A COWAROlY PLEA IN AN I'M
PORTANT CASE.
COmplacent Impudence of Judge
Law successfully Twisted-The
Effect of n BOycott-Judge
Made LaWs-HOW TO
Fight Them.

1t would be good thing for some
people if they confined their tactics
within the limits of practicableness,
however advanced they may imagine
themselves in theory. The DISPOSE
ton of the boycott cases in this city
might serve as lesson to would-be
boycotters.
Three of the five indicted men,
bers of District Assembly 81, X. Of
L., appeared before Recorder Smyth
last week with their counsel, Louis
f. Post, to plead guilty to conspiracy
to ruin the business of Gardiner x
Estes, shoe manufacturers. of Ninth
avenue and Fourteenth street over a
year ago. They were John +. Gill,
John Foster and James Campbell.
These three men and their two
companions, who were absent from
court on leave, were not the only
boycotters. They were the en-
ployes of combination Of many
hundreds of men. Officiatingas the
Executive Board of the district as
sembly, they had by a strike induced
Gardiner 4 Estes to discharge an
obnoxious foreman, Odler NJ. lIartt,
who had discharged Knight on a
malicious charge of theft.
Hartt went to Baltimore, and the
Knights there learning that he had
misbehaved himself in New York
refused to work in the same shop
with him, and he was again dis
charged. Messrs. Gill and Foster
were also indicted for a similar
conspiracy" against Hanan 4 Son.
The case went to the Court of Ap-
peals on h0beas corpus, aud that
court decided against the prisoners.
There was no dispute about the
facts, The only question was whether
proceedings of the kind described
are a criminal conspiracy.
And what had these men done
that they must stand trial for crimi-
nal conspiracy? They simply car
ried out the orders of their constitu-
ents and informed the firms employ
ing a person who was personally ob
noxious that the workmen belonging
to their organization would not work
in shops where he was employed.
Any man has a right to refuse to
work III shop with another, even il
in leaving his employers they suffer
loOss.
No violence was done, nor had the
prisoners transgressed any statute
law, nor had they even threatened
violence, nor was it their object tC
ruin the business of any one, yet fol
the sake of escaping an honorable
imprisonment these men permitted
their lawyer, Post, to make the fol
lowing plea without protest:
+" / submit that this is case in
which the discretion of the court
may be properly exercised. Here
was question that was properly dis.
puted by the bar as well by the peo
pie generally. These defendants
have acted in no respected ma
liciously. They stood upon what
they believed to be their rights on 8
disputed question. They now come
into court and plead guilty. | ask
for a suspension of sentence"
The prosecuting attorney chimed
in, and further degraded the de
PENDANTS, by saying:
" Undoubtedly these defendants
believed they were acting within thu
limit of their rights. Now they
have ascertained that they far trans
cended any rights that individual'
or combinations have, and | think
under the circumstances presented
here, all the ends of justice will bt
subseryed by granting the motor
made by counsel for the defendants
and therefore join in that motion.
The prosecutor made the admis
sion that "there was no physlca