Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-05-22
NOT READYT0 ANSWER
A Decision in the Injunction Case
Against the Exchange
Is WITHHELD UNTIL THURSDAY
Both Sides Present . Great Many Interest
ing Afidavits.
SOME OTHER LABOR NOTES OF THE DAY

The now rather famous Injunction suit
against Ga members of the Builders Ex-
change, brought by outside contractors,
came up yesterday in Common Pleas No. 3.
The Courts decision was reserved until
next Thursday.
About 10 O'Clock yesterday morning the
case came up for argument before Judges
Parter, McClung and Kennedy. The court
room was comfortably filled with representa-
tives of both sides. The hearing grew very
warm as it proceeded. The plaintiffs pre-
sented numerous afidavits containing seri-
Gus charges against the Exchange, while
the defendants denied everything they were
charged with.
Attorneys Fitzsimmons and L. K. Porter
represented the plaintiffs, while Attorneys
Ferguson and Watson appeared for the
Builders Exchange people. Mr.. Porter
cited the allegations made in the bill in
equity. The court then commenced to hear
the testimony in the case.
Blocked by the Exchange.
William Schuberg swore the Builders
Exchange prevented, the Squlres Hard
ware Company from selling him material
after contract for the same had been
entered into John Hanna said after he
had ordered plastering from Fertig & Co.,
of Allegheny, paid for the same and after
the first load had been delivered, the firm
refused to deliver any more and offered to
return his money,
Nicholas Beck said he had asked Sankey
Bros. for $500 brick, but they refused to
sell because he was not member of the FIX
change. Before he could get the brick else
where, Sankey Bros. made a contract with
the owner OF the building and he lost the
job.
E W. Houston said ne tried to get ma
terial from the Squires Hardware Company,
but it refused to sell because he was not
member of the Exchange. At another time
he secured the brickwork on an East End
house. The general contractor said he
would have trouble getting supplies if he
paid his men 81 30 per day. A committee
from the Exchange visited him for the pur-
pose of getting him to pay but 81. He said
he would pay what he pleased, but if he
could be ensured supplies he would resign
his membership in the journeymen's union.
He was told to see President Barnes When
the latter heard Houston would pay his
men S4 80 day, he said, 'You can't get
any material"
The contractor who had the brick work
on the Gusky building swore Hooper Bros.
refused him brick because he was not
member of the Builders Exchange. Daniel
Eagan and w. j. McMasters said they had
peen refused material by several people for
the same reason.
Hard Work to Get Supplies.
Ksskel Solomon presented strong affi-
davit stating that George p. Kretz had been
given the contract for the Solomon & Ruben
building on Smithfield street. A Cleveland
firm, the only one supplying portage red
stone, refused to sell any, claiming
that if it did SO the Pittsburg
Builders Exchange would withdraw
its support. Kelly & Jones refused to
furnish boilers and steam heating apparatus
because the contract was in the hands of
non-exchange contractor. Halpin, Kennedy
& Co., Rasner & Dinger, Taylor & Dean,
j. Reinecke & Co. and Charles II. Hunibert
also refused to furnish supplies and the
firm has lost considerable time and money.
Many other afidavits of a similar charac-
ter were read and Mr.. Porter summed up
the evidence and argued that there could be
no reason shown why the injunction should
not be granted
Mr.. Watson read afidavits from the
Squires Hardware Company, T. J. Hau,il-
ton, H. R. Barnes, J. I. Stein, w. B. San
key, A. Rosuli, D. R. Speer, A. j. Har-
mack, J. Miller, H. Bullock, w. T. Powell |
and others, showing that there was no law
in the constitution of the exchange
that prevents them from selling to nom
members. Mr.. Watson asked that the de- |
tendants be given further opportunities of |
answering the claim. He said the defend
ants had only been presented with
six of the affidavits and were only |
ready to answer that number. Judge Ken |
nedy decided the argument would proceed |
and answers to the other charges filed later. |
The afidavits of the defendants showed |
they had sold materials to differ |
ent persons outside the exchange. |
The right of sale in the Exchange |
is an individual one and is not e1-
actly dictated by the exchange. The or
ganization has issued request to its men,
bers not to sell to those outside the E1- |
a request At the close of |
the testimony of the defendants, Mr.. Wat |
son reviewed the evidence on both sides,
and argued that nothing had been presented |
by the defendants that would warrant the |
granting of the injunction.
The Court Reserves Its Decision.
The court reserved its decision until next
Thursday.
The plaintiffs and their supporters. the
are sanguine of success.
They think the argument and afidavits they
presented cannot be passed by.
The other side is just as sanguine, even
more so. To their minds they cannot see
how the court can grant an injunction
against them. They contend that if the
court rules they have not the right to
refuse to sell to certain persons
then the workingman has not the
right to refuse to work for Builders
Exchange man. A prominent member of
the Exchange said yesterday afternoon that
several of the afidavits produced by the
plaintiffs were untrue. He said the Ex-
change members had never used any vio-
lence or conspired to injure the bus
mess of the contractors outside the Ex-
change As this was the case, he did not
see OH what grounds the injunction could
be grantee. He cited the cases OF the
Alvin Theater and the printers injunctions.
In both of these the courts were satisfied
that violence or conspiracy had been used,
and on that ground the injunctions were
granted, the Court holding. though, that it
was unlawful to organize together to pro-
tect trade or business.