Bridgeton pioneer., 1899-12-21
DECISION OF REED.
Vice Chancellor Reed Decides Certain Dis
puted Points of the Big Strike
Interesting Decisions.


Interesting Decisions.
TRENTON, Dec. 14.-vice Chancellor
Reed to-day decided the famous case in
chancery growing out of the recent big
strike among the glass blowers of South
Jersey. The suit was brought against the
strikers and their organization, the Glass
Bottle Blowers Association of the United
States and Canada, by the Cumberland
Glass Manufacturing Company, to re-
strain them in their various alleged
coercive methods of conducting their
fight for recognition Of their union
Many acts of violence were complained
of and general boycott was instituted
against those who we're interested in var.
lous ways in the success of the mapufact-
uring company. The opinion recites
these details, making an interesting his
tory Of the strike. While the strike is
over, yet the opinion is important by rea-
son of its giving the findings of the Court
on the situation, which, according to past
events, may be repeated again in the same
industry Dennis A. Hayes, the Presi-
dent of the association, was said to have
been the director Of the strike, and dir
ected the payment offunds to the strikers
for leaving their work.
The Court decides that the association
cannot be enjoined. However, the Court
is of the opinion that there should be an
injunction against Branin, Quick, Surran
and Wilkens, who were on guard at the
works or boarding houses, and against
Hill and Henry, who were at the railroad
station; against Charles and VIM M.
Doughty, Gamble and Thoburn, who
were in the crowd at the railway station,
the former of whom took Hessert to
headquarters; against McQuigg, who
took the Brown boys to. headquarters;
brothers to headquarters, and against
Loder, who does not deny that he stopped
an employe from going TO the works.
The atfidavits of Cranmer Garrison,
Gilliand, Hamilton, Cure. Marks, May
hew, Clark, Samuel r. Moore, Nelson,
Redfeld, Schafer and Swain are such as
to relieve them from liability to restrain
under the decision.
Hayes, the opinion says, has the right
to aid the organization of the strike, to
confer with the leaders of the strike, to
direct the payment of the funds to those
who struck, or promised it to those who
would strike. He denies that he said that
he would not mix with the men at head
quarters, for fear, if there should be any
violence, the authorities would put him to
trouble. Upon the face of the affidavits,
it does not appear that Hayes encouraged
any violence, or that he knew of any vio-
lence, which he tacitly or expressly ap-
proved.
The force of the testimony is that, while
the directions to the guards and strikers
in general may have been only persuasiv Q
methods, to induce workmen to quit the
complainant, coercive measures, in fact,
we're resorted to. 1t is not surprising that
this should be so. When large bodies of
men are combined to bring about pur-
pose, in the accomplishment of which
their feelings and passions are involved /;
the line which separates argument from
force is not recognized readily, or, if
recognized, is not easily observed.
/ Nevertheless, each man is bound to
observe the rights of the employe and en-.
ployer, to employ or seek employment,
undeterred by coercive influences.
Nov, it goes without saying that the
bonn mbardment of ofcomplainant'sf fences and
the boarding house; the attack upon in
coming trains carrying employees, and the
physical interference with or interception
of workmen, were illegal acts. So was the
gathering of large crowds of workmen
about the railroad station to. assist the
interception of workmen. The actual out
come of such crowd was seen at each
arrival. 1t was almost a physical impos-
si0ility for the workmen to move other
wise than according to the will OF the
crowd. however much they may have
wished to do so.
I'm respect to the crowds guarding the
works, the question is whether it can be
regarded as merely pick citing for the pur-
pose of seeing what was going on, or
whether it was for the purpose OF exercis.
ing coercive power upon those who
come to work, or those already working
for the complainant"
Taking the testimony, so far as it stands
substantially uncontradicted, the Vice
Chancellor concludes that the crowds
spoken of in the complainants' bill as
guards" judged by its size and acts,
were designed for coercive, as we'll as
persuasive purposes. Conceding that a
number of strikers could remain in the
vicinity of the factory yard to see what
was going on, vet when the number be
came q crowd. and when the acts of the
crowd expanded into occasional attacks
upon property and abusive language
towards employees and interference with
those seeking to enter the yard, the
.'guard' became coercive instrument.
A permanent guard in public street in
front Of citizens houses or factory is in
itself nuisance,
The opinion holds that under the act OF
1888 1t shall be lawful for workmen to
combine together for the purpose of in
ducing or persuading other work men 70