Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-05-16
Mr.. Gompers in Explanation Of His
New York Action.
CLAIMS THE eega1 WRONG
Errors Of Judge EntitIe Citizens
To- Take Steps to Force Test.
4
THE RIG HTS OF ABOR
To the Editor Of The Evening Star:

| NV attention. You have not only under
| taken to criticise my course In regaro ="
| the injunction issued by Judge Freedman
| of New York. but practically you have con-
demned me to term of imprisonment. ana
! this, too without inquiry as to the actual
facts and law in the case.
| The Cigar Makers International Union OF
| America is an organization which was Or
| gani1ed in 1So4. 1t was fairly prosperous
until 1873 During the panic between that
| year and 1880 the condition of the workers
| in that craft constantly deteriorated, ana
| the frightful tenement house sWeat-SnOp
| system of labor was in full operation IL
| was during that period that that organiza-
| ton, of which I have the honor TO De
member realized that if We desired protec-
| ton in trade interests we Wouiu nol
| only be required to contribute for 1mmenl-
ate trade protection. but to also incorporate
| a system of benefits to be paid to the mem-
| bers in case of illness, unemployment, traV-
cling in quest of work, as well as IN cases
| of strike. or lockout, and for life insurance.
| The organization has just issued It's man
cal report for the fiscal year closing June
| /. 1900, and it shows that in the past TWEEN
| ty years the sum of S4.o45. 462. 81 has been
| paid in benefits, ninetenths of which nave
I been for benefits other than strikes ana
| lockouts, thus demonstrating the provldent
character of the organization, as well as
| its ability to defend, protect and promote
| the interests Of the members of the craft.
In spite of very best endeavors. sew
eral cigar manufacturers in New YORK
| forced such conditions and low wages upon
| their employees that in one establishment
| the firm of krebs. Wertheim & Schlffer,
| 2,5o0 employees, only 400 of them being
union members, in sheer desperation struck
| work in March. The Cigar Manufacturers
Association inaugurated sympathetic
| lockout, not to promote their own lntefeStS
or to defend themselves against any de-
| mand of their employees, but to prevent the
workmen from financially contributing
toward the support of the krebs, Werthelm
& Schiller strikers. Among the manufac-
turers the firm of Levy Bros. & Co,
who obtained an injunction from Judge
Freedman not only restraining and enJoin-
ing the officers and members OF the Cigar
Makers Union from picketing. but also pro-
hibtinS them from payment of the regular
benefits toward which the members have
paid, many of them for more than twenty
years
Picketing as understood and carried
by our organization. is not coercion, intimi-
dation or violence, but for one or two men
to walk upon the public highways near the
factories in which the dispute exists, 10
avoid lettering and to peacefully and re-
specially request any unacquanted
with the matter in controversy to seek en-
ployment elsewhere. and thus not take the
places of the men and women on strike and
| lockout. This species of peaceful picketing
has time and again been declared legal in
several states, and particularly in the state
of New York.
Binghamton, n. Y. judge issued an in
junction of the same order and character
that issued by Judge Freedman. That
case appealed to the court of appeals
of the state of New York. which overruled
the decision of the lower court sustaining
the contention of the right Of workmen to
peaceably picket an establishment in which
a controversy exists and to pay men en-
gagged in pickeung. Thus the law of the
state of New York, defined by the high
est judicial tribunal of that state, has de-
clared lawful the right of picketing
In spite of this decision Judge Freedman
issued his injunction. Do you not observe,
therefore. that if there was any one who
violated the law it was Judge Freedman,
and not L? You say that l assumed the
right to overturn Judge Freedman's deci-
sion. AS matter of fact, Judge Freed
| man undertook to overturn the decision of
the highest court in the state. You urge
p that "a process stands prescribing for up
setting a ruling which any citizen deems
unjust or unprecedented. The decision
was not unprecedented, for it was in direct
| line with the Bnghamton judges decision.
That it unjust was demonstrat ed by
the decision of the New York court of APP
peas.
1t must be borne in mind that In case of
a strike lockout injunction has far
different effect than in other causes. If
the terms of injunction prohibit work
| men from doing those things that they
have a legal right to do are obeyed the in
jury is already done, the strike must neces
sarily be lost and no damages can be Sc
| cured. If the organization had complied
with the terms of Judge Freedman's in
junction the strike and lockout would be
lost and irreparable injury inflicted. Is 1t
reasonable that we should permit every
strike to be lost through compliance with
an injunction. which can be obtained in
every contest, when the principle involved
in the injunction has been definitely set
tied the law of the state?
l am sure that it is not unusual for men
who believe that law is unconstitutional
n viola q II in order that
be made and thus secure the decision of the
courts upon the contention without calling
forth the condemnation of the press My
action in exercising my right in refusing to
obey the injunction of Judge Freedman, a
right declared to be lawful by the highest
court of the state of New York, was not
only juStifa BILE but essential and in effect
was in the nature of contest as to the
validity of the injunction issued by him.
If l would advise my fellow-workers to ig-
| more such an injunction, it would have been
worse than cowardice had / not been will
ing to bear the responsibility of such ad-
vice. A judge who declares that man has
no right by peaceful means to attempt to
persuade another from taking his place, has
overstepped his rightful powers. When he
decides that have no right to aid finan-
ciaIy any body of workmen engaged in a
trade controversy, he places himself in
ridiculous position. and makes his proceed
| ing farcical.
The fact of the matter is that there is
no law in any state of the union upon
I
sion. We have witnessed within recent
years attempts made by those opposed to
| the workers efforts to improve their cond-
| tons to substitute court ,dnads law for the
| absence of laws enacted by the Congress
and legislatures. We are engaged now in
| an effort to secure a Modification of the
| law of injunction, restricting the power of
courts to issue the writstin trade disputes
with employers. We claim no exemption
| or immunity from the laws should any one
| of our members be guilty Of an ioffense or a
crime but we insist upon exercising our
lawful rights without let. or hindrance by
| a Judge whose actions Justify the belief
| that he regards himself as superior to the
laws.
| Your intimation that my action may re-
suit in my retirement for a period to a
| secluded spot to think out the problems of
| labor and government IS entirely gratui-
| tous and appreciated. 1 love my liberty, and
| Imprisonment would be, to say the least
| very disagreeable to me: but there are some
| things that are even less desirable, among
| them ones loss of self-respect and the loss
of inherent and lawful constitutional
| rights. There was a time when work
men were denied the right of leav-
| ing their employers. when they were
| part of the soil owned by their en-
| ployers, and any attempt on their part to
| leave was regarded the escape of a
| slave-brought back, imprisoned, branded
| and gibbeted. Not many years ago when
| workmen counseled with each other for the
| Of resisting reduction in hot