The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1900-11-05
BACKED BY CROSSON.
Executive Member of BrickIay-
ers' Union Tells the Truth
About Ellington.
POLLS OPEN TOMORROW. .......s A. NJ.
POLLS CLOSE ToMoRRow......7 P. M.

James Ellington, Democratic candidate
for Freeholder, takes occasion to reply to
a statement published in Saturday s
Journal" which alleges that the mem
bers of Bricklayers Union No. /, have
decided to scratch him because of his
position in the strike of 1891 He also
puts forth in opposition to the statement
letter written to him by Hugh S. Cros-
son, an executive member of Bricklayers
Union No. TO- and one of the men who
was selected to arbitrate that strike. The
letter and statement of the candidate are
as follows:-
Jersey City, November 8, 1900
James Ellington, Esq, Jersey City
Dear Sir-I was very much surprised
to read of the action of BricklayerS
Union No. l, regarding your candi-
dacy / am informed that your action
during the strike in 1891 is the ground
Of opposition to you now. AS you
mittee appointed to arbitrate the mat
ter for the bricklayers, and / feel that
l ought in justice to. say that your
course then was perfectly fair and
ton for the bricklayers, l feel that
the short notice given to the builders
was unreasonable, and that opposition
on the part of any builder should
not, after the lapse of ten years. be
made reason or excuse for injury to
him.
1 feel that this attempt to injure
your candidacy among laboring men.
engineered as it was, is unmanly, and
can only result in injury to organized
labor in this county.
You may make such use of this let
ter as you see fit
Yours very truly,
HUGH S. CROSSON,
Executive Member Bricklayers Union
No. 10.
Mr.. Billington's statement isl
Ever since have been in business
for myself | have employed only mem
bers of the union. / have never en-
ployed a non-union man. l was great
ly surprised therefore, TO accidentally
learn at the. last moment that special
meeting of Union MO. 1 had been
called to consider my candidacy. I
know the purpose of the union, having
been a memher before l set up in
business, and my surprise was caused
as much by the fact that the union
proposed to discuss politics as the fact
that was to be the subject of dis
cussion.
I attended at the hall before the
meeting and requested, if any action
adverse to my candidacy were pro-
posed, that be given an opportunity
to hear what was said. I was assured
by the president that nothing would
be done until had been heard. I then
left and waited outside for call. The
meeting was in session some hours and
adjourned without taking any action,
as / then believed.
My reason for asking to be heard
was that but few of the members of
the union were members during the
strike of 1891 which is made the
ground of attack upon me now.
know that all the members of the
union at that time, with one or two
exceptions, are with me now MANY
of those who are members now do not
know the circumstances surrounding
that strike, and might, and I now be-
lieve were misled
The strike in 1891 was caused by the
fact that the bricklayers gave the
builders but three days in which to
comply with the demands made. The
builders thought this short notice un-
reasonable, especially as it was made
during busy season, after MANY
contracts had been let To comply
with the demands would have meant
a personal loss of thousands of dol
lars to the builders, and the refusal by
them of the demand was followed by
the strike.
All the bricklayers were members of
the union in 1891 admit now that their
short notice was unreasonable and find
no fault with the builders who refused
to comply with the demands.
To spring this meeting, without
proper notice to the members and
without giving me a chance to be
heard, and to attempt to commit the
union formally to a policy which the
majority of it's members oppose is un-
fair, unwarranted and dishonorable.