Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-03-19
Col. Blodgett's Contention as
to Wabash Employees.
CITES THEIR OWN CODE
DECLARES THREATENED STRIKE
Is FOR REVENGE.
Only an Attempt to Force the Railroad
Company to Recognize
the Union.

ST. LOUIS. Mo, March 19.-Col. Blodgett
resumed his argument in behalf OF the
company when the hearing In the wabash
case was resumed this morning. He read
extracts from the constitution of the Broth-
erhood of Locomotive Firemen to prove has
contention that there were no grievances
entertained by the employees against the
road, inasmuch as the brotherhood, ac-
cording to his contention, had not proceed
ed In accordance with its own laws.
Its failure to do So he claimed, showed
cenclusively that there were no grievances
to be redressed. He claimed further PROOF
of this In his statement that the grievance
committee had never taken up any alleged
grievance. The whole thing lay, he de-
clared, in recognition Of the union. and'
failing of this, the defendants had con-
spired to induce the employees to stop work
and otherwise injure the road.
Charges Of Bad Faith Denied.
Taking UP the affidavits submitted by the
defendants, in which it was claimed that
the Wabash road had not kept good faith
with it's men, Col. Blodsett declared that
there had been no instance cited by the
men in which promise made by President
Ramsey or any other official Of the road
had not been kept in spirit and letter.
The denial of the officials OF the TWO
brotherhoods that any coercion had been
employed to induce the men to leave the
Wabash road was, the speaker declared,
not founded upon fact There are, he stated.
benefit funds In both organizations to which
the men pay monthly dues. There is In the
laws of both organizations. he said. rule
providing that II any member declined TO
strike when an order was issued by the
officers he should forfeit his membership
and pecuniary benefits, and action taken
he faar nf
clared. plainly coercion. Col. Blodgett con-
cluded his argument at 1890 o'clock by a
general resume of the evidence, in which he
declared 1t was plainly shown that con-
cripple its commerce Col. Blodgett was
followed by c. N. Travous Of counsel for
the railroad.
Right to Combine and Strike.
Mr.. Travous conceded that employees had
a right to combine and right to strike,
provided that such action was voluntary
on the part of all concerned, was not in
breach Of contract and was for a lawful
purpose. but declared that in the present
instance all of these elements were absent.
Over one-thfrd of the men, according to the
statements of the defendants, were opposed
to strike, a strike would be in violation
of contract, and it was, he said an unlaw-
full conspiracy against the road.
Mr.. Travous in closing recited the obliga-
lions imposed upon railroads by the inter-
state commerce law, a federal statute,
and urged that inasmuch as railroads were
compelled to accept and carry freight, no
matter by whom offered, and were obliged
to offer equal facilities to all connecting
lines. 1t was their right to have federal
protection in carrying out the provisions
of the federal laws
Opening for Defense. s.s-,
At the close Of Mr.. Travous' argume mt
Attorney F. N. Judson rose to make the
opening argument for the defendants. Mr..
Judson said that the attorneys for the rail-
road had declared that the injunction did
not prevent any man from leaving the en-
ploy of the Wabash.
He read that portion Of the injunction
which prohibits any officers Of the union
from persuading or coercing the employees
of the Wabash road to leave its service The
right to resign, he declared, Is the chief
right that labor has, but under the word
ing Of the Injunction the officers Of the
labor organizations are prohibited from in
sinuating or suggesting to an employee OF
the Wabash that he could better his
condition by quitting work, and this, he
said, was an interference with the right
of men to stop work when they chose.
There was. he said, no attempt on the
part of the two brotherhoods to discrimi-
nate against non-union men and such con-
duct was not foreign to the policy of the
railroad organization.
At this point in the argument d recess
was taken until pm.