The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-11-23
WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
Petition of Labor Men
Filed In Supreme
Court.
THE EIGHT-HOUR QUESTION.
Petitioners Want 1t Pre-
scented to the Voters
For Settlement.
THE ElGHT-HOUR QUESTION.

Early yesterday afternoon a petition
for a mandamus was filed in the su-
preme court against the board of al
dermen of Worcester, ordering them to
instruct the city clerk to put in the no.
tice calling the next annual meeting, TO
be held Oh the second Tuesday of De-
cember, for the decision of the voters
of Worcester on the question of the ac-
ceptance of the eight-hour law, as pro-
vided for in the statutes of 1899.
Thayer & Cobb are counsel for the
petitioners, who include some of the
prominent labor men of this city.
Among them are jefferson d. Pierce,
Walter S. Chase William A. Rossley,
John b. Lamothe, William Dunn,
Charles O. Blake, Austin H. Heffern,
Thomas Gray Daniel Cole, Elzear P.
Dubois John H. Jefferson, William Du-
gan, Thomas P. Fleming, John Elem
ing, Louis Meyer and William E, Nc
Gam.
Attached to the petition are two ex-
hibits marked "A" and "B, one an or
der in the board of aldermen, and the
other letter addressed to the mayor
and board of aldermen, asking to have
placed on the official ballot the ques
ton, Shall the employees of this city
work but eight hours per day, as pro-
vided for in chapter S44 of the acts Of
1892" The names of the men who are
Joined as plaintiffs in this action were
appended to the letter.
The petition reads as follows:
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDANf-
US.
Plaintiffs say they now are and have
been for several years past residents
and legal voters of the city of Worces-
ter, in said county; that they now de-
sire, and have so desired for some time
to have said respondent order the city
clerk of said Worcester to put in the
notice calling the annual meeting of the
voters of said Worcester, to be held on
the second Tuesday of December, 1899,
the question of the acceptance or nom
! acceptance by said voters of the eight
hour law for employees of said Wor-
cester as provided in the statutes of
1899, chapter 344; that the following Or
der Ca copy of which is hereto annexed
marked "A') was introduced in said
board Of aldermen by one of its mem
| bers, and by majority vote said order
was rejected; that on the eleventh day
of November, 1899, the plaintiffs filed
have said question put in said notice
| by order of said respondent to said city
| clerk "a copy of said petition is hereby
| marked "B'D; that on the thirteenth
| Gay of November, 1899, said petition
| came duly before said respondent board
| of aldermen; that said respondent, by
majority vote, refused to put said ques-
| ton in said notice, and gave the plain
tiffs leave to withdraw as appears by
| the records of said board.
] Plaintiffs further say that even if dis
cretionary power has been given to said
| board to order the putting of said
| question in said notice, then plaintiffs
say the exercise of said power by said
| respondent board has not been fair,
candid, and unprecedented, but has been
arbitrary, capricious and biased. and
| that said action of said board ought not
| to stand because it is unjust, inequita-
| BILE, and contrary to the purposes and
| intent of said statutes:
| Wherefore, plaintiffs pray that writ
/ of mandamus be issued by this honor
able court ordering said board of al
| dermen to instruct the city clerk of
said city of Worcester to put in the
notice calling the next annual meeting
| to be held on the second Tuesday of
| December, 1899, for the decision of said
voters of said Worcester, the question
of the acceptance or non-acceptance Of
the eight-hour law as provided for in
chapter $40 of the statutes Of 1899.
BY their solicitors,
Thayer & Cobb.
City of Worcester, Sept. 1899.
IN BOARD OF ALDERMEN.
Ordered-That the city clerk be re-
uuested to prepare and insert in the
draft of warrant for the annual city
| election of 1899, to be duly presented
| to the board of aldermen for it's adop-
ton an article in proper form proyid-
ing for the submission to the voters the
question whether chapter 344 of the
laws of 1899 entitled IAN act to make
eight hours a days work for city and
town employees shall be accepted.
Worcester, Nov. II, 1899
To His Honor the Mayor and Board of
Aldermen:
Gentlemen-We, the undersigned legal
voters of this city, do hereby request
your honorable body to instruct the
city clerk to have placed on the Off
cial ballot for the. coming municipal
election the following question: Shall
the employees of this city work but
eight hours per day as provided for in
chapter 344 of the acts of 1899?
WANTS DAMAGES FOR AN INJURY
Michael V1ckey, through MS counSel,
has filed petition for damages at the
clerks office at the city hall. The
plaintiff was working at the purifica-
ton works at Quinsigamond and on
Nov injured his hand by the falling
of an iron rail. A hearing before the
city council is asked for.
MRS. RICE WANTS A DIVORCE.
Emma C. Rice filed yesterday in the
superior court a libel for divorce
against her husband. Ernest D. Rice,
of Worcester. Sullivan & O'Connell
are counsel for the libellant.
TAFT VS.. LYBECK.
In the case of Daniel w. Taft, exor.,.
VS.. Charles F. Lybeck ct al, which has
been pending in the superior court, an
entry of neither party has been made