The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-09-12
THE LABOR SIGNAL In COURT
Owners of the Paper Object to Its Being
Conducted for the Democratic Party.
q Receiver Asked for. and Gruells will Prob
ably Be Compelled to Account for His
Doings--Mr. Coles Political Principles


atives OF organized labor are beginning to pay
the penalty for misrepresenting workingmen and
attempting to control their unions and assem-
blies in the interest Of the Democratic party.
For several years tho Labor Signal has been the
organ of these organizations in Indianapolis,
and during most of that time Gruelle has been
employed by cooperative publishing company
as editor of the paper Recently be and others
employed with him have ceased to publish It for
the purposes originally designed, and have made
II o thorough Democratic campaign sheet IL
has been frequently charged that the State
central committee of that party was buying
large number OF the papers and circulating
them over the State for campaign purposes.
All this was done under the guise Of an organ Of
organized labor. OF late the PAPER has been
made the purveyor of slanders against Repub-
lican candidates which other Democrats papers
would not use. The directors of the company
by which the paper was published have all along
objected to its prostitution to SO base
9 purpose. and frequently warned Gruelle
and those connected with him that there
would have to be change of policy. Gruelle
refused to listen to their adnonitions, and the
result was the fling OF suit in the Superior
Court last evening. asking for an order restrain
ing Gruelle and the other defendants from pub
fishing the paper; for an annulment OF q pre-
tended lease they hold; for an order compelling
them to make accounting OF funds they have
received The court was also asked 70 appoint
q receiver.
The plaintiffs il this suit are Thomas Egsn,
William Alfred, Jared R. Buell.. William
Iobp ffaho hr
Allen Jennings, and James W. Maher.
Thomas " Gruelle and John Bodenmil-
Yer are the defendants. The complaint
sets forth the object of the company. and
quotes from the bylaws to show what duties
are TO be performed These give 20 the directors
general supervision of the comuanys business
and make it incumbe on them TO employ per-
sons to conduct the paper, but they must be
stock holders. The complaint further says that
the stock was taken by various subscribers,
with the understanding that the paper to be
published by the company should be, In name
and In fact, a true and faithful champion o. the
laboring interests whose influence should not
be the subject of the commercial conscience Of
any one man. or clique of men, who might value
money above principle lie is then cited that
ooe of the unwritten but we'll Understood objects
nj livestock holders was the management Of a
paper devoted entirely and exclusively
to the interests OF the Labor Union, and the
laborinc classes, and to ignore the old party
lines and influences. With that end in view
the directors purchased the Signal from
Gruelle, who started the paper some time be-
fore the formation OF the company. A few
weeks before the presidential nominations were
made. q few directors, with q view Of getting
possession OF the paper for their own nee,
placed Gruelle and Bodenmilier in charge and
secured change in the board Of directors.
This was DONE the complaint alleges, $50 that
they might oe IN q position during the campaign
70 make the conduct and course of the paper
the subject Of commercial enterprise and emolu-
ment for their private gain"
IL IL further alleged that Gruelle and Boden-
miller had themselves respectively elected pres
fdent and secretary OF the company, and then
assumed entire control OF the paper, 'using the
same In their own interests, under such selfish
and corrupt management as to embarrass the
company and render il insolvent.' The defend
ants, il is charged, have made no report of the
cornpanys affairs, sand have kept the books
fhersof In close custody, refusing plaintiffs an
opportunity for inspection" They are further
charged with entering into q conspiracy for the
purpose of securing further control of the paper
by obtaining pretended lease. This WAS done
& is alleged, "for fear there might be .
change n directors, and the defendants
political piaas would miscarry" 1t 10 further
stated that a meeting Of tho stockholders was
recently held, and that the defendants were
given timely notice OK the intended action
against them An inspection OF the lease, it is
charged has been refused the plaintiffs, and
their right 70 dictate the policy OF the paper,
and to employ persons therein has been wholly
denied. 1t is also charged that the defendants
have mismansged the paper and that the direc-
tors allow ''Gruelle and Bodenmiller, who
are unprinciplsd demagcuges land are barterers
of alleged political infusnce, to dictate the
policy Of the paper TO the injury of the cause Of
labor" In conclusion it is claimed that the de-
PENDANTS are receiving large sums Of money
which should be turned over to the company.
bat which they are converting to their own use.
The suit is brought by Shepherd & Martindale.
The petition for the order restraining the de-
PENDANTS from publishing the paper until the
matter is adjusted will be heard to-day.