Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1893-04-06

Improper-Lively Tilt Between
Judge Barrett and Col Johnson.
New YORK, April 5.-The arguments
upon the order granted last week oy
Judge Lawrence, directing the United
Garment Workers 10 show cause why
they should not be restrained from send
ing out boycott circulars 10 customers
of the Clothing Manufacturers Associ-
alton, were begun to-day before Judge
Barrett 10 Supreme Court chambers.
Col, Johnson, OF Lauter0ach q john
son, appeared for the manufacturers,
and Herman Fromme for the striking
cutters.
After some argument as 20 whether
there was an Injunction out against the
defendants or merely an order TO show
cause, on which point Mr.. Fromme ap-
l peared TO be confused. Judge Barrett
disposed Of the matter by saying that
he would permit the copy Of the under
taking 10 be served and tled at once II
necessary.
Mr.. Goff. representing the American
Federation, then showed 10 the court
that the papers contained only a gen
eral allegation that the American Fed
Grafton OF Labor had eonspired with the
other defendants 10 do certain unlawful
things, but did not set out any overt
~Sets, showing how and in what way
the Federation had engaged In any con-
spiracy.
Mr.. Johnson tried TO get Mr.. Gof to
stipulate for his client that 10 would
have nothing TO do with the boycott,
and said that he was not anxious 10
keep the Federation in the fight.
Mr.. Golf, however, insisted that In
the absence OF a case against 10 on the
face OF the papers, the Federation
was entitled 10 be dismissed without
condition. The absence from the in
junction papers Of any specific charges
against the Federation having been
made 10 appear clearly, Judge Barrett
then denied the motion for an injunc-
tion against that body. Mr.. Goh then
y retired, having triumphantly borne his
client out Of the LITIGATION.
Col. johnson then stated the case
against the garment workers, laying
stress on the fact that the acts sought
TO be enjOined were endangering the
safety OF millions Of capital invested by
his clients in their business. He read
the circulars issued by the garment
WORKERS.
Mr.. Fromme then outlined his de-
Tense, which was that the plaintiffs
came seeking equitable Intervention
with unclean hands. They had deceived
the court, for II there be anY conspiracy
TO do an illegal act the plaintiffs were
ha- -, mi tho nafann-
ants. The trouble between the parties
was then told briefly, Mr.. Fromme stat
ing that the cutters were locked out be-
cause they would not agree 70 abandon
their labor organization. As a result
9O1 persons were thrown out Of work.
Mr.. johnson, in reply, said that nine
tenths of Mr.. Fromme's assertions were
false.
Judge Barrett inquired: "Do you
dispute that resolution CT the manuiac-
turers locking out the union men?"
There Is no dispute as 10 the ground
} of IL, said Col. johnson.
''Then were not those people dis
charged by a resolution passed by a con-
spiracy on the part Of the plaintiiTs?"
Col. Johnson having given his ac-
count OF the troubles between the cut
ters and manufacturers, Judge Barrett
remarked: Those very disputes make
IL very evident that there was q war
fare"
"None at all, interrupted the law
yer.
II don't know what you call war
fare" replied Judge Barrett, "but II
seems 10 me that your clients, after con-
spring 10 exclude the defendants from
employment, have come into court Of
equity TO ask that the other side be
stopped from using their only weapon. Z"
THAT is an unlawful weapon" said
the lawyer.
'If the circular In itself is unlawful, 4"
continued the Judge, "then would not
your clients be left an action at law or
a criminal prosecutiOn?'
To show thar they were not COM
pelled 10 resort to these latter reme-
dies, Mr. Johnson attempted to cite
Judge Taft's decision against the engin-
eers the other day.
Judge Barrett said, however. that
the principle OF the decision has no ap-
plicatiOn 10 the present controversy, as
IL was rendered under the interstate
commerce act.
The crowd listened quietly, but broke
into a great laugh during one OF the
cOlloQuys between Judge Barrett and
Col. johnson, when the Judge said re-
plying 10 the lawyers averment that
the cutters left the firm Of Sheinmeyer
and LevOnSOhn the firm persisted in
employing a nOn-uDiOn cutter, "and
your clients revenged themselves by
discharging the entire union"
After the brief recess, Judge Barrett
announced that he did not deem il
necessary 70 protract the discussion on
} the motion further. as the point made by
the defense was clear. that the action
could not be maintained by more than
one individual plaintiff. There was no
such thing as combination Of plaintiffs
There had been no Joint circular issued
against q joint number Of manufacture
ers. There was no principle OF law or
equity that enabled an action 70 be
=. brought in such a combined form. 1t
Nseemed TO him that the plain
tNfs were fundamentally wrong
ia their form OF action.
There was a combination on both sides.
We have what amounts 10 substantially
a mercantile warfare. We fad q num-
bbr OF men with immense capita on
4 one side and q number Of men with no
capital on the other side. Each s&e
seemed able 70 take care OF itself. The
court should keep its hands of. Both
parties are just in that position that
they must keep within the law. They,
are az arms length, and tf one eau
- l~aHe ~ -.