Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-12-11

with reference to the printing of the paper
! known as the Trades Union. That paper is
at present being printed by John T. Barry,
, and was formerly printed by S. Z. CARING
ton, one of the defendants. The Trades
Union was, witness believed. published by
authority of the Typographical Union.
Witness distributed some of these papers
himself and also hired boy to assist him.
AT this point attorney Johnson called
the attention of the Court TO the fact that
Mr. Harrison, the witness, was cited to ap-
pear on the 18th instant, with others, to
answer another charge of contempt. There
fore, the attorney claimed, the witness
could not be compelled to answer questions
which might tend to criminate himself.
Mr.. Hinkson, associate counsel for the
defense, argued that this rule only sp-
piled in criminal cases, and not in cases
like the one on hearing.
The Court ruled that Mr.. benson could
proceed with his examination, and that the
witness must answer.
Continuing, the witness stated that he
was present at meeting of the Typograph-
ical Union when discussion was had re.
garding the ACCESSIBILITY of publishing the
paper SO as to present to the people the
other side of the boycott" question. He
did not think any conclusion was reached
at that meeting.
Mr.. benson asked the witness if he was
present at meeting Of the Typographical
Unicn when an assessment was levied to
assist in the boycott against the Bee.
Mr.. johnson was becoming exasperated
al being constantly overruled by the Court,
and made vigorous appeal that his OBJ
jections be needed.
Judge Buckles pacified the attorney,
however, by explaining that cases like the
one on hearing were somewhat out of the
usual line, and the Court was DESTROYS of
getting all the testimony possible, even
though much of it be irrelevant and i'm.
proper. A great deal of testimony of this
kind had been admitted he said, over the
objections Of counsel for the defense, but
he assured counsel that irrelevant testi-
mony would have no weight with the
Count in arriving st its conclusions.
The Court overruled the objection and
instructed the witness TO answer
The witness then put in an objection for
himself. He said the Typographical
Union was secret society, and he was
under obligations not to divuge any of the
proceedings of that society.
Another argument followed.
Mr. johnson held that the witness oath
10 his society should be respected lust as
much as if he were Mason or an Odd
Fellow.
Judge Armstrong ruled that the witness
must answer. He said that in judicial in
yestigatioDs the oaths of members of secret
societies were not 10 be respected He re-
ferred to the Mollie Mcguire troubles in
Pennsylvania, in which the defendants
were all members of secret organization,
yet they were compelled to testify. If peo-
pie were permitted in this manner to keen
relevant testimony out of Court, the ends
OF justice would never be reached.
Inc question was once more propounded
to the witness, and his answer was There
was no such assessment levied"
In answer to further questions the wit
ness stated that on the last Sunday in o.
tober, an assessment was levied upon the
members of the Typographical Union "for
the purpose of assisting the locked out
printers in their struggle with the Bee
Witness was not present at meeting of
the Union when the disbursing officers re-
ported how that assessment money had
been expended. He did not know what
was done with the money, neither had he
heard any of the defendants say what was
done with it. Witness was aware that per-
sons had been employed to assist in the
boycott. Messrs. Garrison and HARDER
were employed in that capacity, as well as
himself. Do not know of any other who
were employed.
Being referred back to the circulation of
a written agreement among the advertisers,
Mr.. Harrison said he turned it over to Mr.,
Cody, because he considered that gentle
man one of we'll balanced intellect, and one
whom he knew could be trusted the duty
OF truthfully representing to the business
men the grievances of the printers against
the Bee. He did not know if there were
any duplicates of that agreement, nor did
he know who wrote the agreement. Wit
ness was paid by the Typographical Union
for what assistance he rendered before the
commencement of any injunction pro.
ceedings. He did not know whether or
not others received compensation for SINH
lar work since the commencement of the
legal proceedings
Adjourned until $50 o'clock this morn.
ing.