The evening world. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1887-1931, 1894-08-15
RIGHTS OF STRIKERS.
Crowds of Tailors Hear Arguments
in the Injunction Case,
LAWYER Stecker Submits More Than
100 Affidayits.
No intimidation, but Quiet, Peace
full Protest.

Supreme Court, Chambers, was crowded
to-day with merchant tai!ors, members
Of the Journeyman Tailsrs' Union and
people Interested in labor matters when
Judge Beach heard arguments upon the
motion made by counsel for John Pat
terson & Co. and otner merchant tailor
ing firms to make permanent the tenn
porary injunction issued b. Judge Dugro,
Of the Superior Court last week restrain
ing the members of the Union from even
going in the vicinity o fine stores OF the
plaintiffs.
IL is doubtful If such a sweeping in
junction was ever before issued by a
court in labor controversy, and the
interest taken in the matter by those
interested in labor matters was evident
from the large attendance to-day.
Lawyer Hastings, of Hastings & Glea-
son. counsel for the merchant tailors.
opened the argument. His statements
were much the same as those on which
Judge Dugro granted the temporary in
junction. He claimed that the members
of the Union had entered into a con-
spiracy to injure the business of the
| firms. who were the Plaintiffs in the ac-
ton and who embraced nearly all the
tsilors on Fifth avenue and the imme-
date neighborhood between Twentieth
| and Thtrtieth streets.
He alleged that the Union had es-
tablished pickets, which he described as
| u standing army, VINO went on DUTY
| as early as O'Clock in the morning
| for the purpose of hindering and inter
| fering with the business OF the plaintiffs
and intimidating tailors not members
OF the Union from working for plant
| ms
He also charged that the members OF
the Union had violated the law by pub
fishing in the newspapers and IN cir
cllars requests TO other taiiors not tc
work for the plaintiffs.
Lawyer Charles Steckler, of the Pu
liter Building, replied. He agreed witt
MIR. Hastings that 1t was matter of re
greet that most of the Supreme Court
justices were out OF town when the APP
plication for the temporary injunction
was made, 50 that the matter was taker
to the Superior Court
II do not believe" said Mr.. Steckler
| that there is a justice of the Supreme
| Court who would have granted tn,
temporary Injunction"
Here are l.6OO men," continued Mr.
| Steckler, who are actually restrained
from walking along certain streets OF
this city, simply on general allegations
| that are -hased. not on actula Rnowl
edge; but on information and belief.
THE allegations against these mer
do not contain a statement of singl,
specific overt act, the name of a sin
gle man who was intimidated to qui
saulted. The affidavits of all the plain
tiffs arc the same. except the name OF
the, maker. and are simply lot of gen
eral charges that must have been baset
on Information and belief"
MI Steckler denied that the union wa
for the purpose of hindering the bus
mess OF the plaintiffs. He charged tina
the plaintiffs had entered into con
| N
and that the plaintiffs had bound them
selves to pay *l,Coo II they violated thei
conspiracy agreement and paid the mem
beers of the union the wages asked.
This is case" said Mr.. Steckler
where "a body Of men with $4,000
capital have banded together to depriv
these men of their rights.
III the charges made by the plaintiff
were true, they could proceed agains
the defendants by a criminal action an
have them punished much more Sc
verely than for violating an injunction
issued by a court of equity. They kno,
their charges are false, and for tina
reason they do not go to the crimina
| court
Mr. Steckler then called Judge Beach
attention to the fact that he submitted
attached 10 his papers, the affidavits {
more than one hundred members of tn
Union denying that they had intimidate
plaintiffs, or that they had assaulte
any OF the men who wished to go I
|, | NOfE.
The makers of these afhlavits aC
mitted that they had in a peaceable an
! orderly manner presented TO the me
who went to work for the plaintiffs III
. grievances of the members of the Uniol
but denied violating any law.
MIR. Steckler also submitted about fift
aftidavits from men not formerly men
= bers Of the Union, who swore that the
had not been in any way intmidated b
= the Union, but, after hearing the wa
the members of the Union had bee
: treated, had voluntarily quit workin
for the plaintiffs and Joined the Union
Affidavits were also introduced by NJ
Stickler TO show that certain OF tn
: plaintiffs had offered work to the men
! bers of the union, at the old rate, Or,
: vided they would resign from the o.
= ganization and had said that the me
. chant tailors were determined to brea
/. up The union.
At the conclusion Of MIR. Steckler
= argument. Lawyer Hastings asked Thu
he be furnished with copies of the aft
davits submitted by Mr.. Steckler, al
J, be given three or four days to answ
: | them.
= Judge Beach denied the application ar
= told Mr.. Hastings that II he had ar
= answering aftiiaVits TO file he could
SO tomorrow. Judge Beach then took Il
|. papers and reserved decision.