Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-05-15
TIE LAW NOT VIOLATED
Judge MCPHERSON Makes q Rul.
Ing in the Morrison Glove
Cutting Case.
Holds Expert Cutter Of Ladies
Gloves Exempt From Alien
Labor Law.
Case Will Be Tried to Jury. But
an Acquittal Must
Follow.
,ecial to Times-Republican.

Dies Moines. May 15-Judge McPher-
cutter case In the federal court yester-
day. He holds that the case must be
tried, but that 1t is incumbent upon the
state to prove the assertions made by
District Attorney Niles in his informa-
ton that the manufacture of ladies' fine
gloves in this country is an established
industry and therefore not exempt from
the alien labor law. The case was the
outcome of a difficulty of David Morri-
son with former employe of his glove
factory at C;rinnell. The employe was a
glove cutter and a member OF the Glove
Cutters Union at Gfoversville, n. Y.
Morrison found 1T next TO Impossible to-
secure competent cutters in this coun-
ry outside of this union which took up
the cause of the employe. who was dis
charged for reasons wholly outside the
question of hours. rules or wages. A
friend OF Morrisons who was travelling
IN Europe was appealed to and secured
in Austria two competent cutters who
came to this country and began work
at the Grinnell factory. Complaint was
made to the federal authorities and
United States Attorney Lewis Miles
brought action against Morrison for al
legged violation of the contract alien la
Dor lax. Morrison demurred. claiming
that the statute barred the importation.
of laborers, but not of skilled mechanics
in any new industry not established at
the time OF the enactment Of thu law.
February 1850. The court goes into the
history of the foreign immigration. and
foreign labor, at length Many facts
are cited showing the effects of cheap
foreign competition with American la
cognizance of. judicially, however, as
they are not brought before the court
officially, but are merely found by the
court upon it's own investigation. Judge
Mcpherson states all these points will
have 20 be gene over thoroughly before
a jury. He refuses to throw out the
case on the strength of the defendants
claim that the cutting of ladies' gloves
is a skilled trade, and not the work of a
common laborer
In his exhaustive opinion Judge Nc
SPherson arrives at the conclusion that
court and jury must eventually find
that expert glove cutters do not come
within the inhibition of the alien labor
law.
Since the case came before him Judge
Mcpherson has investigated 1t thor
oush and found that ladies gloves are
made in only four or five places in the
United States: Johnston, n. Y, New
York City. Chicago. st. Louis. and
Grinnell. Ia. He found that absolutely
no ladies' gloves were made in this
country prior to 1855. the date whei.
congress passed the allen labor law
which says that 1t shall not apply to
amy new industry not at present es-
tablished in the United States" IL the
"at present established" refers to 1855,
when the law was passed. there being
no ladies' kid glove manufactures then
in existence. Mr.. Morrison cannot be
held.
He concludes:
II have made the most diligent and
stireless search in the reports of the de-
partments for data and facts german to
the imports of ladies' kid gloves, and
the manufacture thereof in this coun-
try, and receive practically no informa-
laws. and specially the one now In
force, had for one of its objects either
the creation of the industry, IL not all
ready established, or its maintenance,
IL already established. And this perhaps
is the one question in this case. Is the
manufacture of ladies' kid gloves an es-
tnblished business in the United States?
IF established, when was it estab-
lished?
II can not resort to evidence in pass
ing upon a demurrer. and yet inforina-
ton In the nature of evidence is all l
have.
81 know. and perhaps 1t is of general
knowledge that there are some ladies'
kid gloves manufactured In this coun-
try. But it Is claimed that such gloves
have not been 80 manufactured until
since the passage OF the tariff act of 1897
and then not to the extent of making
1t an established industry. But as yet
they are manufactured in limited guam
titles, and In but three or four places in
the United States, and possibly at but
the one place west of the Mississippi
river. and that at Grinnell, Iowa, by de-
PENDANT.
THE exact facts as to these matters
/ do not know. But II the foregoing is
substantially correct statement of the
facts, then take 1t no one would claim
that defendant Is guilty of the crime
charged, because the statute provides.
Nor shall this act be 80 construed
as to prevent any person. or persons,
partnership. or corporation from en-
gaging. under contract or agreement
skilled workmen in foreign countries to
perform labor In the United States in or
upon any new industry not at present
established In the United States
1T will be kept in mind that this stat
ute was approved Feb. 26. 1885 1t Will
be kept in mind, also. that the statute
recites not at present established DO
the words at present established mean
the date the act was approved by the
president, or the date OF the acts com
planned OF in the accusation against de-
PENDANT? Counsel have not argued this
point, and am not prepared to decide
1t.
THE United States attorney. In pre-
pairing the information. charges II both
ways. He says that both Feb. 90, 1885.
and in 1900. when defendant did the
things complained Of that the manufac-
.ture of ladies' kid gloves was estab-
llshed in the United States.
such is his information, or OF the Of
flcer directing him to present the
charge. But such is neither my lnfor-
nation. nor belief. But he makes it an
allegation Of fact. and most specifically