The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-07-10
Accused of Not Taking Back Strikers
According to Promises Report
ed to Have Been Made.
NO COMPROMISE THIS TIME, THE Ex-
EMPLOYEES ASSERT.
Proposition to Leave Adjustment of
the Matter to Their Own AttOr-
ney Ignored by the Strikers.

ST. LOUIS. July 9.-The strike against
the st. Louis Transit Company by its
former employees, which was declared off
on July 3 was ordered renewed to-day at
a meeting of the Street-railway Mems
Union at the West End Coliseum. To-
morrow morning at o'clock was the time
fixed for the renewal of the boycott on all
the company's lines.
When the strike was settled on July
there were some utterings of discomfort
among the men over the terms of settle
ment, and since that time the dissatisfac-
ton has grown daily. Charges were made
that the company had failed to keep the
agreement of July and dozen or more
instances were cited tending to prove that
there had been a breach of faith. Meet
ings were held at several places in the
course of the week and committees were
appointed to procure proof of infidelity on
the part of the company. AT a meeting of
the executive committee of the Railway
Mems Union held on Sunday batch of af-
fidavits was produced to the effect that
new men have been employed by the COM
pany since July in violation of the terms
of agreement of that date. After session
lasting several hours the executive commit
tee determined to call mass meeting of
the street-railway men for this morning
and to recommend to the meeting that the
strike be declared on again. The Central
Trades and Labor Union met later and in
dorsed the action of the executive COM
mittee.
The representatives of the company,
through President Whitaker, addressed
letter to the men denying that the COM
pany had Intentionally violated the agree
ment of July and declaring it's intention
to live up to the agreement, both in letter
and spirit. Fred w. Lehman, attorney for
the company, appeared at the meeting and
offered to submit the question as to
whether the company had broken faith to
Joseph w. Folk, counsel for the men, and
bind the company to abide by Mr.. Folks
Judgment in the premises. The proposition
was ignored and by unanimous vote the
strike was renewed.
A member of the executive committee
said to-day that this was the second time
this company had broken faith with its
employees. and no agreement would be ac-
cepted in the future that did not provide
| for the reinstatement of all old employees in
| twenty-four hours after the execution of
| the agreement. There will be no lawless-
| ness or demonstrations of violence this
| time he continued. "By means of Wig
orous enforcement of the boycott we hope
| TO absolutely destroy the earning capacity
! of the company
| The whole trouble seems to hang on a
| question of facts the men insisting that
| the company had violated it's agreement,
| while the company on the other hand, en-
| phatically denies that such is the case. The
| men claimed yesterday that a verbal agree
| ment was entered into concurrently with
the written agreement, and under the ver-
| re-employ all the old men in sixty days,
| seniority in the service determining the
| priority of Unemployment 1t was claimed
| that the Rev. DR.. w. w. Boyd had, in a
| speech at the West End Coliseum, assured
| the men that such an agreement existed
| The officers of the company declare that
! there was no such verbal understanding,
| was the written agreement, which was
| published at the time. In proof of their
| contention on this subject they show the
| original draft of the terms of settlement,
signed and presented by 7. B. Edwards,
| chairman of the grievance committee in
| which a clause providing for arbitration
| and another providing for the re-employ-
ment of the men according to the seniority
| of service were stricken out, and the clause
| does not appear in the settlement signed
by both parties to the controversy.