Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-12-12
LONG D8EWH.OJT.
ANOTHER DAYS TESTIMONY IN THE
CONTEMPT CASE.
Two Witnesses Manage to Occupy the
stand the Greater Part OF the
Day-Not Concluded.


q. w. Mckay and others, for alleged con
tempt of Courtin disregsrding the restrain
ing order of Judge Armstrong, two wit
nesses-Messrs. Robinette and HARDER
were on the stand up to a late hour in the
afternoon.
When the Court convened in the morn
ing, Judge benson, of counsel for thu
prosecution, offered in evidence copies O
the Trades Union, issued between October
18th and November 18th. To this Mr.. John
son, counsel for the respondents, objected SC
strong and so persistently that it caused q
sharp tilt between himself and Judge
Armstrong. Counsel commended that the
Court was unjustly severe, and declined to
conclude his argument on the point a,
issue.
The first witness called was ]. L. Robin.
cite, Secretary of the Typographical Union
He was asked if he had brought his books
with him, and he replied that acting un-
der instructions of counsel, he had not.
Mr.. johnson argued that the subpoena
did not state what books or records the
witness was to bring and the Court held
that the point was well taken. The wit
ness was, however, admonished to bring
certain ones with him in the afternoon.
The witness was questioned as to his con-
nection with the Typographical Union,
and that of others of the defendants. He
was questioned as to the nature of the duties
OF the Executive Committee OF the organi.
cation, which he explained. To nearly all
the questions asked Mr.. johnson objected,
but in the main the objections were over.
ruled.
Witness was asked as to whether the
Executive Committee was il any way con.
nected with the publication of the Trades
Union, 10 which he replied that he had no
personal knowledge of the committee hav-
ing anything to do with the paper.
He had heard that it had, but it was only
rumor. He did not know who represented
the Union in the Council of Federated
Trades. There are now, so far as he knew,
no representatives of the Union to that
body.
Mr.. Hinkson read from the Pacific Union
Printer a report, published in November,
1889, of the annual meeting and election of
the Sacramento Typographical Union, and
witness testified that he furnished the re-
port. Included therein were the names of
the Executive Committee. Witness was
not aware OF any changes having since &C.
CURED in the personnel of the committee.
Mr.. Hinkson asked number of ques-
tons by which he said il was sought to
prove that the relations existing between
the Typographical Union aud the FEEDER
ated Trades was such that money passed
from the one to the other, and that the
Federated Trades was the medium through
which was published in the Trades Union
the Objectionable matter complained of.
Mr.. Johnson objected, but the objection
was overruled, and witness was examined
as to reports made by Federated Trades
delegates to the Typographical Union. He
said there had been some verbal reports
made, but he did not remember what they
were, and could not recall the dates when
such reports were made.
Witness said he believed the Topographic.
cal Union had had something to do with
the publication of the Trades Union in the
way OF advancing some money.
At the afternoon session Mr.. Robinette's
testimony was resumed. He testified that
he did not know what trsnspired at the
November meeting of the Typographical
Union, as the minutes had not been written
up, and he had lost his manuscript thereof.
He remembered that bill of S. E. Caring.
ton was presented for printing and allowed.
He could not state the nature of the de-
mand.
These answers we're all admitted against
the objections of Mr.. johnson.
Witness testified that an assessment was
levied on the members of the Union about
the 9th of October, for the week ending
November LIST, on the recommendation OF
the Executive Committee.
Mr.. Hinkson insisted on the witness
reading the entire report, to which Mr..
johnson strenuously objected.
The Court directed the witness to read
and he did SO. The report was to the effect
that the committee recommended the
publication of a paper to be called the
Trades Union, for the purpose of making
public the printers side of the controversy
with the Bee.
Witness testified that at the last meeting
of the Union another assessment wa:
levied, but there was nothing to show whai
the money was for. All moneys collected
are paid into the general fund.
In reply to question by Mr.. Hinkson
witness said he had never heard of such q
committee as the Boycott Committee. .
He had never heard of the Executive Com.
mittee having been instructed to take
charge of the boycott against the Bee
Witness knew nothing as to how the Car
rington bill had been contracted. There
was report made TO the Union in Novem.
Der; heard the report read, but his memor.
andum of the meetings proceedings had
been mislaid and he could not find them
He did not see the report. 1t related to the
amount due against the paper (the Trade
Union). He did not remember who read
the report, nor who constituted the com
mittee that submitted the report.
Witness could not recall the drawing o.
any warrant in favor of c. NJ. Harrison
and others for services in inducing person:
to withdraw their patronage from the Bee
There was a warrant drawn in Mr.. Harri
sons favor, bat witness did not know
what il was for. Other warrants in small
sums were drawn in favor of various per
SONS for committee services the nature O
which witness was not familiar with
Mr.. Hinkson endeavored to elicit from
the witness an admission that money wa.
paid to certain parties FOR the purpose O
maintaining the controversy between thu
printers and the Bee, but the witness sale
the books showed nothing to that effect
Referring TO his books, witness found ar
entry on October 2Sth of the issuance of {
warrant for $50 so in favor of Messrs Har
rison, HARDER and Garrison, as members o
the Boycott Committee"
Mr.. Johnson argued that everythin!
done by the committee was prior TO Novem
Der Sth, the date of the restraining order
and had nothing to do with any ALLEGED
contempt of Court. The committee cesseC
its operations when the order YVES issued
Moreover, the persons mentioned were no
included in the citation for contempt, an(
whatever they may have done prior to tn,
issuance of the restraining order could Gu
no figure in the proceedings now befor,
the Court. He held that the manifest pur
pose in drawing out this class of testimon,
was to elicit something that might bolste
up the plaintiffs side of the case when th,
boycott case should be tried on its merits
Mr.. Johnson's objections to the line O
questioning were overruled, and witness
was asked what was meant by the tern
Boycott Committee used in connection
with the issuance of the warrant referred
to. He replied that be did not know. a
the entry was not made BY him, but by tn
Treasurer.
Mr.. Hinkson asked witness if he haC
ever seen an agreement prepared by til,
Typographical Union for the signatures O
persons 10 withdraw their patronage from
the Bee.
Witness said the Union had never or
dered moi prepared such an agreement, an,
that the money paid to Harrison was no
for services in circulating such an sgree
ment. If such an agreement (which b
had never SEEM had been circulated by th
Federated Trades, witness did not know c
it, as he was not member of that organ