The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-11-04


convert It into MI Illegal net. to be headed
or by the extraordinary process Of in
Junction.
The Affidavits.
/ lie then took up the nfrlduvi,s, filed
TO sustain the plaintiffs bill, and con-
tended that they were vague and in
definite, setting forth In most cases that
"they" dideso and so. They may have
\ been 9linions men or may not. The AMI
davlts should be more specific and call
nnmes He read II number OF affdnvits.
denying that force, coercion or ntimi-
i dution had been the weapon Of the union
/ men These were signed by t. W. Rnyle.
4 w. +. Mitchell. g.. w Schief, j. ..
/ Stewart, John e. Burnett NJ. II. Pace.
| Walter T.. Booth, ". C. Booth David
| Wilson a. y. Mccullough, j. y. Ride
| nour.
| He argued the affdavits as he went
| along. All or this was merely prclimi-
/ nary diminishing. Mr.. Lamb did not
afternoon session of the court, when he
spoke about an hour. celebrating the
| points made in the morning.
New Affidavits.
/ The plaintiffs then submitted new uhi-
davits to prove the allegations in their
bill, which We're read by Mr.. Wnddey,
| One Of them, very lengthy one. gave
| the correspondence in full between the
| Everett Waddey Company ana the Lam
! ston Monotype Co., or Philadelphia
| This was done to show that upon APP
| p!ication OF the Richmond Union. the
/ Philadelphia Union had threatened the
| Monotype people with boycott II they
! took into their training school perHons
/ sent there by the Everett Waddey Com
! pBny.to learn how To manage the Mono
/ type machines. Mr.. Lamb objected to
the Introduction or this affidavit by Mr..
4 Waddey. as it's matter was principally
4 as Ia what happened In Philadelphia.
| The court took the objection under nd-
/ vIsement. but heard the document read
! all through. AT the conclusion OF the
4 reading OF the now afiidnvits the court
/, took a recess to to-day, setting the hour
4 OF meeting at IL O'Clock, so as to, give
counsel time to reply to the new mat
ter. Mr.. Wydham Meredith, who repre-
sents the plaintiffs. will follow Mr.. Lamb
| to- day, and Mr. Wendcnburg will close
| for the respondents. but may not finish
to-day.
| The Unions Side.
The answer OF tho striking printers to
the bill OF the 1'ypothetas is too long TO
| be printed in It's entirety, but the fol-
L 4 I
| counts:
/ 1. That they believe the allegations in
paragraph No. of said bill are true ex-
cept that they do not believe that the
+! purpose OF the Richmond Typothetao Is
TO advance and protect the interests of
| The printing trade and business In said
4 city; but they believe and therefore
| charge that its main purpose Is to as
| vance and protect their own private In
/! terests by uniting their strength, and
J thus hoping they may destroy the unitse
| strength OF their employees; and to this
| end they have a national association or
session OF their own, known as The
| United Typothetae OF America" OF
which Richmond Typothetae is a branch.
j and is bound by Its laws and sresolu-
| lions.
2. That the allegations In paragraph
! No. 2 of said bill are true.
| 3. That the allegations in paragraph
No. 8 Of said bill are true.
| 4. That the allegations in paragraph
| No. 4 OF said bill are true.
s. That these respondents deny that
there was an implied agreement between
Richmond Typographical Union, No. &c.
! and the complainants, that the working
hours In the printing trade were to be
| nine hours a day until the LIST day Of
January, 1906: and they deny that such
| ar agreement was made by the officers
1 Of the international rypogra phlcal Union
! and the officers OF the United Typothe-
! tao of America ut a conference held at
J Syracuse n. Y, In 1885, These respon-
4 dents did, on September II. 1906 call on
4 the said tonplainants to say in writing
\ wtlethertthey would then agree that the
working day should be eight hours on
| and after January /, 1905, but this was
! not in bad faith, and these respondents
| DENY that this was one or the reasons
| Why the said compliments refused 70
accedc to said demand, These respon-
| dents say that the effort Tor an e!sht
! hour day has been going on tor three
| years.
Both organizations took positive
stand on this question tthe eight hour
day1 in 1900. and the struggle then be-
J gan. R'+fts"
| The National Fight.
| When the Typographical Union refused .s
| to reconsider its action. the United ~
pathetao of America thereupon met IN
Niarara Fails on september I, 1905, and
1 again refused to consider any agreement
! leading to the eIght-hour day, although
] the said Eight Hour Committee made
| another effort In writing to adjust me
! question. Theeupon Ill unions were
notified by wire that the opportune TIME
had arrived to make demand for me
eight hour, day. Even at this time me
slid compartments were rushing their
work ahead so AZ to be in a position to
meet strike. which had not then been
declared, and they then knew what their
answer would be to any demand made
for an eight-hour day, and did not need
i any time In which to give their answer,
So far as the compliments were con-
cerned. they could have given their an
/ swer In six hours as we'll as they could
in six months, for each and every one. o
them knew what their answer would Pc
rhey had already decided what their
answer would be, and were only play
4 Ing for time and were rushing the work
i they had on hand. so az to be In n better
4 position to meet the strike which they
4 we'll knew was Inevitable and would Ger
tainly come as a result OF the action
| - +ho Ma tiora1 iTyDot hetae al Its meet