The San Francisco call., 1905-01-28
JUDGE DENIES
UNION CHARGES

Superior Judge j. c. B. Hebbard yes
terday granted the motions of the bak-
cry unions to transfer to some other
court for hearing the cases of SWANS
and Thorp & Co., wherein it is sought
to restrain the labor organizations from
pursuance of their boycotting tactics.
The affidavits charging the Judge
with bias and prejudice, upon which
the motions for transfer were based,
were answered by Judge Hebbard in an
affidavit in which he denied imputed
antagonism to- unionism and declared
that the defendants in these cases
could have a fair trial in his court. He
also averred that, though the charges
= were not within the statutes relating
to the disqualification of Judges. he
would grant the motions as further evil
dence that he was not biased. He
frankly admitted that, both as a citizen
and Judge, he is opposed TO boycotts.
In substance Judge Hehbard's affi-
davit relates that for fourteen years
last past he has been and now is
Judge of the Superior Court. His
father -in-law, Charles Schroth, now de-
ceased, owned a bakery, confectionery
and restaurant business, and at the
present time, the Judge believes. sew
eral of his brothers-in-law own stock
in that kind of business.
Neither he nor his wife ever had any
interest. directly or indirectly, except
as above stated, in such business. He
never gave any counsel or advice to
any of his relatives by marriage con-
cerning the defendants or kindred or
ganizations, and more than two years
ago he refused to have assigned to his
court a case involving the rights of
bakery employees then on strike as he
remembers, because one of his broth
ers-in-law held an important place on
an employers committee having the
suit in charge.
Judge Hebbard affirms that he never
made use of the language attributed to
ohim in the defendants affidavits, nor
did he ever express himself as antago-
ntstic TO labor unions generally nor to
any organization of persons assisting
therein. "On the contrary" says the
affidavit, he believes such organizations
70 have right to exist and have protec-
tion under the law provided the or
ganizations themselves submit to and
obey the law. And continuing, "affiant
admits that, both as a citizen and a
Judge, he is opposed to all forms of
boycotts,' and that the excerpts from
o his opinion in the case of Goldberg.
Bowen & Co. against the Stablemen' s
Union are correctly stated but the
bias or prejudice. He has, he says, no
prejudice lin this case and could give it
fair trial under the facts and the
Jaw, and to show that there is no preju-
dice, and although the issues of fact
and law made up in this motion do not
chine within the code provision relating
to the disqualification of Judges he
will grant the motion to transfer
Supporting the affidavit of the Judge
was one by F. A. Swain, plaintiff in one
of the suits for injunction The affi-
daTits of the defendants had entered at
length into statement of the purity
= Of purpose of the unions. Swain denies
that the sole purpose of the unions is
to better the condition of the laborins
man and protect him from the abuse OF
. unreasonable employers.
He says that he was. waited upon by
a committee which demanded the dis
scharge of three old and faithful en-
ployes, who had been removed from the
unions because they refused to take
their meals at a restaurant other than
e Swain's. The aff1ant declares that the
unions may have sought with others tc
tighten the burdens of the men by
meeting employers in fair and honor.
able way, but so far as he was con.
cerned they never employed such meth.
ods. but have attempted to gain con.
cessions by intimidation.
sSwain also sets forth that Judge Heb