The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-10-29
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv vYvvYYvYv1vxYvYv

stating that the custodian of the agree
ment had said he had DESTROYED it.
Brown testified that the agreement was
for one year. and master plumbers
agreed to employ only journeymen, and
the latter agreed to work only for mem
bers of the association. The scale was
$3.50 per day. Witness said that one of
the defendants had approached him and
asked that he join the association by
payment of an initiation fee of $50. but
he had refused. II told him I wouldn't
give him a hundred and fifty cents to
join the association" said Mr.. Brown.
II was a member" continued the wit
ness, but ceased to be about six months
ago At that time l employed two plumb
ers from Seattle. The initiation fee of
the union was $25, and when these men
wanted to join they raised it to $50, which
they refused to pay. 1 was notified by
the union that these men must Join or
that 1 must let them go, and if they
didn't. the plumbers would go on
strike. The master plumbers held a
meeting and asked me If / would get the
men to join the union. 1 then urged
them to do it, and they agreed to do so:
and when went back TO report to the
Master Plumbers Association l was told
that l had been suspended. l told the
men that. and then they refused to join
went out on strike for six dollars a
day. / held mine by paying the scale.
After the strike had been running for
six weeks, I was told to attend meeting
of the master plumbers, and then learn
ed l had been reinstated on condition
that 1 let my men go, but did not join.
Mr.. Brown then went on to tell the
losses he had sustained by this alleged
unlawful combination, which deprived
him of his employees. He stated speci-
fically three contracts he had been COM
PEELED to refuse on account of this, two
of them written contracts which he is
to bring into court today. He testified
particularly to a contract with the Homo
lulu Investment Company, which he was
compelled to give up, because he couldn't
get the men to do the work, and also
of written contracts with Parks and the
Japanese immigration Company. He said
that work that had been planned by
plumbers in his employ had all 70 be
done over again, because of ney men
being put to work on the job. He also
mentioned a contract with the New
England Bakery he was compelled to re-
fuse.
what profit do plumbers generally
figure on, on day job?" asked the
Court.
1T is the custom to charge ten dollars
for a. plumber and helper per day."
returned the witness.
DO they have much plumbing in this
town." asked the Court, while witness
and jurors smiled.
what is the profit per day.
I'VE generally figure on three dollars
a day"
witness stated that he was compelled
to refuse contracts because he couldn't
get plumbers to do the work, and though
he had tried to secure their services they
to work for him.
The defendants continued to object to
the question relating TO the refusal OF
certain employees of Brown to work for
him, on the ground that the reasons for
their refusal could not be given as they
were not defendants. This finally led
the Court 10 remark: 1T is not good
policy to object continuously, though
some of the objections are well taken
for a jury generally thinks that it is evil
dence of a weak case. I will instruct
the jury az the close OF the evidence
not to pay any attention TO any of the
of attorneys or Court during the
progress of the trial
Mr. Brown testified that he had been
making about $500 per month on his bust
ness before the strike settlement ana
that since then he had been running at
loss of $50 per month. The witness was
at length, but his eVl-
dence was not noticeably shaken. Ihe
case Will be continued at the opening OF