The San Francisco call., 1904-07-12
COURT LISTENS
TO UNION NAN
Captain of the Stablemen'S
Pickets Gives Evidence i'll
Suit for an Injunction
SAYS ACTS ARE LEGAL
Monroe ReprOved by Judge
for an Attempt to Argue
With Examining Lawyer

e. z. Monroe. captain of the Stable
mems Union pickets. was on the stand
I'll morning in Judge Hunts court yes
terday in the trial Of the suit brought
by f. q. Pierce. proprietor OF the Ne
rada stables. for an injunction against
The union. Upon the result Of this
hearing. as far as the lower court can
determine, VIII depend the right OF
labor organizations TO use boycotts
md pickets against employers said 10
be unfair"
Answering questions asked by I. c
Van Ness. attorney for Pierce, Monroe
said thrt in a union meeting, upon
motion of some one whom he did not
remember. DE was appointed captain
Of the Dickets and given full power
10 act il his distribution and direction
Of them. keeping within the bounds Of
law Nobody had defined TO him what
was within the law nor did he receive
any other instructions. Mr.. Van Ness
later questioned him in detail upon his
understanding Of the legal rights OF
The Stablemen's Union and stable pro-
priet0rs- Monroe answered the queries
with directness. but ofttmes insisted
upon dhlLE EAAldLdLlD4lS " ll4NA OAANN
or twice took an argumentative form
on one Of these occasions Judge Hunt
gdmonished the witness not 70 argue
ne case. but 10 leave that for the at
torneys.
Monroe testified that he took charge
Of the pickets about April %, a week
after the strike at the Nevada Stables
was begun. At first only two men
were engaged in carrying banners in
front Of the place. but on the ninth or
tenth Of May he put on thirty-five men,
going around with horse and buggy
to gather that number from the other
stables. He appointed captains for the
pickets n the various stables. He
himself remained al headquarters, but
when he heard OF a disturbance among
The u.cLets al the Nevada Stables he
would 90 down and take the disturbers
out of the hae an5 send them TO the
Office. The disturbance. he said, con-
sisted in their "hollering things I told
them not 10 hOller. being drunk or
clsorderIy and talking in loud tones
MONROE'S MOTIVE.
When asked by Van Ness what he
expected 70 accomplish by having thir-
ty-five men parade in d circle. Mon
roe replied that he intended TO notify
the union and labOring people not TO
patrOnize an unfair stable Van y SIS
asked II this could not have l en- done
with a single-banner man and Monroe
said he thought the more pressure
brought 10 bear the quicker the thing
would be ended. Questioned further
Monroe declared that while one or two
men would not be seen, thirty-five or
fifty would attract the attention Of "a
lot Of the public who cannot read"
Your idea" said Van Ness, was
10 show Pierce that he could not run
his business the way he was running
i but as the union wanted it run?'
Monroe responded in the negative
and said: We don't object to how h
runs his stable. but we do object To
his trying 10 run our business, and I
guess We have as much interest in la
Dor as he has in his own business"
Van SIS asked # Monroe. as a
union man. recognized the right Of
Pierce and other stable owners to run
their business in their own way so
long as they did not interfere with the
union or the unions business. The
witness proceeded 10 explain that
Pierce had called his uniol- men down
from their work one day in 1.priI and
showed them an open shop" card
telling them il they did not want "a
work under those signs they could take
their hats and go. Monroe said that ir
this action Pierce was debating to tbs
union men as 10 how they sho1ld work
Thereupon Van Ness asked if there
was any law against posting such
cards, OF If Monroe knew Of any lega
right Il a union to dictate to an EN-.
pioyer who put UP open-shop cards.
The witness declared that as long as
an employer had up an open shop card
and had no union men working fol
him, the union sid not care how many
cards he posted. but it objected to en-
ployers hiring non-union men and put,
ting them IN with union men.
ARGUMENT FOR LAWYERS.
In response 70 further questions Mon.
roe argued that an employer had n,
legal right 10 agree with his employees
as to the hours Of work or amount o
pay they should get and in explanation
Of his belief that a iaborer had a righ
TO demand certain hours and certain
pay the witness said that he had work
ed III stable here before the time O
unions and that he received $50
month for working from O'Clock il
the morning 10 8 at night. He asket
II the attorney thought that was legal
whereupon Judge Hunt interrupte,
him and told him that be need not ar
que the case.
Going deeper into the proposition o
rights, Van Ness asked If Monroe un
derstocd IL 10 be the right OF union
by pickets and boycotts TO interfer
with a mars business because he df,
not do as the ucions wanted Mcguire
the attorney for the union, objected L
the question as requiring an expres
sion Of the witness's opinion and al
Interpretation Of union rules whicl
had not been mentioned in the plead
iEgs. Monroe was Of the opinion tha
q union had a right to dictate to al
employer as TO what kind Of work a.
employe should do and cited that
hostler under union rules would no
be permitted to clean harness in tn
stable nor would a harness man b
permitted TO clean horses-it would b
one man doing two mems work. h
said.
The trial OF the case will be resume