Waterbury Democrat., 1901-09-12
THE BOYCOTT CASE
Famous Labor Union Trial in
 District Court.
SEVERAL JURORS EXCUSED.

Attorney Kennedy for Sandiford Chal-
 lenged Those Who Had Prejudices
 Against Labor Organizations-Th
 Jury Was Completed About Noon
 The First Witness Was Called After
 The Noon Recess.
 The rights and privileges of labor union were put on trial before a jury and Judge Cowell in the district court this morning. The case was that of the state against Joseph Sandiford, representative of the Carpenters union boycott. He was represented by Sena- tor Kennedy and the state by Attorney Bradstreet The usual preliminaries having been gone through Senator Kennedy asked if any of the jury had any prejudice against the accused or labor unions. Eli M Towne of Ply mouth instantly arose and said he could not sit on the case He was im-s mediately excused. This suggested to the senator that it would be wise to poll the jury and this was immediate ly begun. Three were excused with out Interrogation, their business at home being urgent and demanding their attention. Up to noon five were found incompetent, having prejudice of some sort or being deemed unsafe to hear the case and two were chal- lenged
 Three of the jury had been disposed of when Attorney Bradstreet objected to MT Kennedy mode of examination. He held that the complaint did not embrace the Carpenters union, but merely it's delegate. Therefore the Carpenters union was not on trial. MT Kennedy held that the union was on trial for the accused was the repre- sentative of that union, he was dele gated to carry out certain rules and regulations and precepts of it and in so doing he was arrested and charged with crime. If that was not putting the Carpenters union on trial MT Ken nedy would like to know the contrary. Judge Cowell said that to enter the ethics of labor organizations in exam ming the taleSmen would not be fair nor proper for men would naturally differ as to what was fair and just in an organization of any kind. MT Ken nedy's main question to each juror was if he had any prejudice against an organization of men which had for it's purpose the betterment of their con- dition.
 This was rather broad question as some of the jurors looked at it and it was when taken piecemeal that their prejudice, if they had any, popped out. MT Kennedy said that labor organiza- tions were as old as the hills; older than the country; older than the con- stitution of the country and then he was allowed to proceed with his ex- animation.
 The following were excused by counsel for the accused: D. J. Curtiss, manufactures, Woodbury; James A. Warmer, storekeeper, Thomaston; B. c. Bradley, farmer, South Britain; William D. Pritchard, farmer, Vol colt; Eli c. Towne was prejudfced and therefore excused; Spencer Hotchziss of Naugatuck was challenged by the state and John R. s. Todd of Wolcott by the defense. This left two vacan- cies on the panel and Sheriff Rigney was sent to bring in two men. He brought in Adam Faber and Benjamin Witowski. These were acceptable to both sides, and the jury was made up as follows: Besides the two just nam- ed George s. Beardslee, Frank Bah, WatertoWn; William E. Mitchell, Ii. V. Peck, Southbury; Miles Benson, Dayton Atwood, Middlebury; Stephen Talmadge Horatio N. Clark, Prospect, and from Waterbury William T. Grill ley and Abraham Greatsinger
 Substantially the case was this: MT Sandiford was alleged to have threatened Arthur F. toilette, con- tractor, that unless he dispensed with the services of a workman named Abraham Cabanna he would have to call off the other workmen, who were all members of the Carpenters union, and that therefore the job would bear the stigma of being a non-uni0n job.
 The first witness called was q car penter named Cardinal, who was boss of the job in question.
 Tn his direct, examination MT Car dinal's evidence supported the allega- tion. but in cross-examination it was somewhat weakened. MT Cardinal fa- vored the idea of giving the job the union brand He was shown card containing the rules and regulations of the union and he then decided to make job union one. He accordingly in creased the wages of the following: Thomas Higgins, John Brandt, Henry Longly and Nestor Deering from 25 cents a day to 50 cents. Tn the next breath witness said he would hire man for 50 cents a day if he could. ''Wouldn't youy' asked Attorney Bradstreet of MT Kennedy.
 "No. sir; I would pay man enough to enable him to pay his bills," replied Mr Kennedy.
 At the time the mems wages were increased everything, according to witness, was pleasant between him and the accused. seThen," said Mir Kennedy. Eff that was so why have you put MT Sandiford on trial for his | liberty?''
 s'Beacuse he pulled the men off the Isjob."
 ] Mir Kennedy tried in vain to rec ] oncile the above contradictory state ments by the witness.
 l Resuming, he said he had no use l for the union; it was no value to him l of the town. Some time ago he be | longed to the union for about year, l and left 1t because it did him no good | Mir K [QnnQdv raY1aindod him that only O