The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-02-28
L TRUSTS and
The [RfglLbfs
OFF Labor


ident of the National Wall Paper Com
pany, to pass uncontradicted in some
very ma terial points. For example, Mr.
Burn was asked:
DO You exact from your employees in
advance of their employment a rule that
they will not hire themselves to enter
the employment Of any competing com
pany while they are in your employ?
| To this the answer was gwen:
No, sir: | never heard of such a rule.
/ Thereupon ensued the following COLO
guy:
/ Q.-You say you have not reduced
the price of labor. Do YOU mean to state
that of your positive knowledge? Al
make the statement because / know;
yes, sir. The wages have been graded,
but they have not been reduced. O.
Are you positive Of that statement? A
OF course / am positive of it or [ would
not swear to it. Odd You reduce
the wages Of a man called Young from
$50 to S22 a week? A.-Why, yes; we
did that because the labor union de-
manded it. The labor union demanded
that we pay a uniform rate, and that
rate i'm this case was SD.
As bearing on the credibility of the first
statement the committee might consult
the record of the case of the National
Wall Paper Company against Robert f.
Hobbs, where, in paragraph ". of Elk
hibit A page 24). they will find the fol-
lowing as part of the covenant between
the Trust and one of its constituent
firms:
J For the purpose of more effectually as
surfing unto the company the goodwill Of
the business hereby transferred and the
continued value OF ITS trade name, copy
! rights. trade marks and other assets,
the vendors hereby severally covenant
and agree that neither they
nor any of them will directly or indirectly
engage in or become associated with any
business of manufa curing, buying or sell
ing wall paper, decorations Of furnish
ngs, or merchandise of a similar char
acter, as principals, agents, employees, or
in any other relation or capacity, or as
stockholders, directors, trustees, agents,
officers or employees of any corporation,
either than the company.
This covenant was so worded IN order
that the construction of new plants
might be discouraged by making it df-
6cult for possible competitors to secure
the services of experienced designers and
c0ldrists. The Hobbs in this case was
one Of these, and was associated with
his father in the business which was
transferred to the Trust. An injunction
was obtained from the Supreme oouTt art
the suit of the Trust restraining Hobbs
as party to this Covenant from working
al his trade either as employer or employee
in amy part Of the United States except
the State of Washington. The exception
is one of the legal subterfuges of such
contracts, introduced for the purpose Of
making 1t appear that the agreement is
one merely in partial, and not in general,
restraint OF trade.
As to the question Of reduction Of
wages and the treatment of "a man call
ed Young" here is the affidavit of that
workman himself from the folios 356-5S
Of the record OF the case in question:
i From July 1, 1890, to July /, 1894,
my wages were $50 per week. About
the middle of September, 1894, my pay
was reduced from $50 to go per week.
| was informed that at the same time
there had been a general reduction in
wages of the plaintiffs employees by or
der Of the Committee ON Economies"
On or about the second day of April,
1895, / had a conversation with Thomas
/ Y. Midlen at the Hobbs factory, No
$40 West Fifty eighth street, New York
City Mr. Aiidlen had shortly before
been appointed manager of the factory
for the plaintiff in place of Robert f.
Hobbs. Mr.. Midlen asked me whether
intended to work at the. Hoboken fac
tory" meaning the new factory, which
was then being equipped by Charles B.
7. Benton, and in which it was supposed
that Robert f. Hobbs had some interest
or intended to work. ] said that had not
just made up my mind yet what | would
do, and then he told me that I would
have to give him a decided answer. /
i said that had chance to go over there
and better myself, and he said that ! had
better stay where | was, because if |
left there and wanted position in a
Trust factory again / would not get it
if I went with these people in HOibOken.
He also said that it would be better for
me TO stay where / was, because they
were going to serve an Injunction a.
gainst the Hoboken factory, and could
| not get steady work there, and that il
/ | went TO the Hohoken factory and it
closed up | would not get work in any
of the factories controlled by the Trust
/ was frightened by what he said to me,
and thought it was safer for me not to
20 with Benton, although Benton offered
me more money than the Trust was pay
ing me, and | wanted to go with him.
/ 1t may be incidentally remarked that in
the leading case of the United States VS..
Workingmen's Amalgamated Council of
New Orleans, an injunction was granted
to restrain a combination of draymeIi and
Others from putting in force tactics less
arbitrary than those Of the Wall Paper
Trust, and that part of the injunction
issued by the United States Circuit Court
during the railway strike at Chicago in
1894 commanded Eugene v. Debs and
others to desist and refrain, among other
things, "from compelling or inducing, or
attempting to compel or induce
any of the employees of any of said rail-
roads to leave the service Of
said road; and from preventing any per-
son whatever from entering
! the service of any Of said railroads and
! do;oo tho work thereof - P9vinU thp