The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1890-10-15
CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE. l

knowledge of the case on his part until
after IL was over, and as one of the national
commit ee he came here to investigate the
trou. lie. The evidence in the case of Nor
rison went no further than to prove that,
acting as shop steward of the Wetmore &
Morse shop, where Mcclure was employed,
he had urged his joining the union and had
acted as intermediary in the negotiations
looking to that end. Mr.. Grady urged the
point that there was no proof whatever in
the case of any agreement to prevent Mr..
McClure's working; that the proof was all
directed to sustain the belief that the agree
ment never went further than that the
members of the union would not work with
Mcclure. Mr.. Grady spoke about four
hours, commanding the close attention of
the jury.
Mr.. Wing followed for state and brought
the argument to close. He spoke for two
hours, and met 10y logical discussion all the
points raised by Senator Grady. He said
the last-named gentleman had referred to
the action of the respondents as "giving an
opportunity to Mcclure to join the union"
" IT." said Mr.. Wing, 81 should present a
bulldog revolver at your head, it would
give you q good opportunity to lend me
ten dollars If you had it about your person."
1t was not necessary that the respondents
should have used forcible means to make
Mcclure quit work; if they made him I'M
derstand thatif he did not join the union
they would organize strike against him,
and, being fearful that they would carry out
that threat, he left, it was just as much
prevention from working as if they had
actually laid hands upon him. This
case, said Mr.. Wing, was not one of organ
lied labor resisting the encroachments of
organized capital. 1t was organized labor
arrayed against a co-laborer, preventing
him from working at his vocation. All the
argument based upon capital u.s. labor-the
graspng greed of corporations, and all that
III hg.f tnH tI,s. t. .l..re
application in this case at all. In regard to
the leader, Mr.. Dyer, the evidence showed
that what he came to see Eagan aho & was
to find ont if he had employed Mcclure, or
what he was going to do about the matter
All the state asked was a fair consideration
OF the evidence. The respondents could
ask no more. He hoped the jury would
give the case the careful consideration its
great Importance demanded and return
such verdict as under their oath and upon
their conscience they believed the evidence
warranted
CHARGE TO JURY.
Judge Munson told the jury that they
would return verdicts of not guilty against
respondents Quinlan and Hooking The
seven remaining respondents were charged
with unlawfnllv conspiring together to pre-
vent Jacob Mcclure from working at his
trade as a stonccutter. In another part of
the information the respondents were
bers of the Granite Cutters Union. The
court then defined 4 conspiracy to be a cor
rupt combination of two persons, or more
than two, by some concert of action, to do
some unlawful purpose or to do some act
not in itself unlawful by unlawful means.
1t was lawful for the respondents to com
bine together for any legal purpose, but if
the respondents combined together and
made a compact to prevent Mr.. Mcclure
from working, and carried out that plan,
then they would be guilty. The respond
ents stand clothed with a presumption of in
nocence, and this presumption attends them
all the way through until it is overcome by
the states evidence. 1t is said respondents
belonged to labor organization, and that
the offense with which they are charged
originated in the deliberations of the organ
| iZation. 1t was lawful to associate together
| for mutual improvement, but they could
not take any steps in that direction that
confiicted with the rights of any other per
son. The court then briefly reviewed the
evidence and showed how the law was to
be made applicable to it. 1t was not neces-
sary to use actual violence in order to be
guilty of intimidating If the conduct OF
respondents had the effect of intmidating
| Mcclure, and compelling him to abandon
his work, it would render them guilty. 1t
was tue duty of the jury to carefully exam
inc the evidence and say whether there
remained any reasonable doubt of the re-
spondents' guilt. If such doubt existed
in the case of any or all the respondents
the jury should acquit If the jury were
convinced beyond that fair reasonable
doubt, it was their duty to convict. Moth
ing was to be taken against the respondent:
that they had not testified. 1t was theil
right to do so or not as they elected. Give
the case a careful and impartial considera
ton and return such a verdict as is war
ranted by the evidence.
The jury took the case after Judge Mum
sons charge, and at the time of going tC
press no verdict had been reported.