Waterbury evening Democrat., 1906-07-10
LABOR INJUNCTION
 HEARING 0N TO-DAY Interesting Correspondence That Pass ed Between Bosses and Men in
 Other Towns REED SUGGESTS CONFERENCE Attorney Kennedy In His Argument Claimed the Strikers Had a
 Right to Speak to Men.

| .
 solve the injunction obtained over a
 week ago by the associated builders
 against the striking members of the Bricklayers', Plasterers' and Masons'
 union began in the superior court be- fore Judge Reed this afternoon at
 2 o'clock. The court room was
 crowded with members of the build ing trades. Bronson and Lewis ap- peared for the builders and Kennedy
 for the enjoined union. The injunc-
 tion was brought in the name of
 Chatfield & Chatfield and the particu- lar defendants named in the paper are William Bowe, president of the
 union; Joseph Hayden, secretary; 1 George Goodall, treasurer. Louis
 Corr, business agent, and Henry Le Brun.
 In opening Attorney Kennedy said the plaintiffs are members of an or
 ganization the object of which is to cause tie up of building opera
 tions and to harass and annoy and
 lock out the defendants As to the
 facts in the case he did not think there was much contention as to the
 facts. He denied that his clients were guilty of any unlawful acts, and they will not break the law. They
 were not afraid of the injunction, still there were features incorporated in 1t which they want modified at least.
 The court suggested that counsel confer and agree If possible on a de- cision. This would dispense with the taking of considerable evidence. Mir Kennedy claimed his clients have the right to speak to men in the employ of the plaintiff to per suade them to accept the defendants view of the situation. He said that Ia promise to pay the fares of the non-union men back to whence they came was not bribery, intimidation or a threat.
 There are two unions in the case, he stated; the plaintiffs are members of one, the Interstate Association of Builders; the defendants belong to a labor union. They refused to work with non-union men and they had right to do this. On the other hand, as he would show by letters and cir culars, the plaintiffs' union took measures to keep the. defendants out of work, and their walking delegate Is in court.
 The court said he thought the mat ter could be concentrated on the question whether or not the defend- ants had the right to talk about this matter. In other words, ought the Injunction be as broad as 1t is?
 Mir Kennedy said that the fact is both the plaintiffs and the defend ants have or had. paid men at the depots, one side watching the other, and their acts toward men brought here to work.
 Mir Bronson said he had had no opportunity to talk the matter over with Mir Kennedy; if he had proba- bly they would have come to an un- derstanding to modify the injunc- ton.
 NIT Bronson then caused sensation by moving for the commitment of two of the defendants for contempt of the injunctive order. He said that not later than 1 o'clock to-day there came near being personal violence on the part of one of the men. Mir Bronson had his witnesses present, he said 10 prove the alleged act of contempt.
 NIT Kennedy answered that this was news 10 him. He said that sl- though the books say it Is almost im- possible to conduct strike without violence, 90 far this one had been.
 Mir Bronson said the one man Tn contempt was the most prominent In the strike. the one who did more to injury the plaintiffs business than any other one.
 The court did not think 1t proper to 70 ahead with the contempt matter as the act complained of was not committed in the presence of the court. but Mir Bronson said thst as the offending man was present. the court could take cognixance of the matter. The court decided not to hear the matter now and the arguments 10 modify the injunction began The man in contempt is Louis Corr.
 In his argument Attorney Bronson said be did not ask to have the de- fendants enioined from picketing the railroad and electric road depots in- l drM ulu ot tAt4 alr NuOAI tirer. anu the defendants may have a right 10 be there The laws permit us." said Mir Bronson. ''to do our own | business in our own way; to employ whom ve please. and the law vill not l permit the defendants from follow ing our workmen from place 10 place l or at their work. It Is sufficient to | call one a seab to be guilty Of intimi- 1 datson or 10 point to man with | scor1 Is . violation of the law. On l dark nights our men loee courage An tutiuz,ion 10 do bodily harm may be expressed by q shrug of the shOul- | ders or by the simple question Are you going 10 take the bread out of our mouthss
 These defendants should not be allowed to talk 10 our vorknen- to interview them or follow them III these nen are allowed to follow our men. to brfbe, threat or cafole. 1t is for one of two purposes. and if is obrfozs that that oce Is rot for pity | The, ft nut be for tse other one. 10 brsbei \ ccerre CT sntfrridzfe then-
 N1Pronson szid good te.l sbo1t the Hou vfth which pe-s11s1cr ehan< into coer<5ea- As D ptcke<- InG DgFs111p1- oooUEo t1o m- 1u|u vuo uunoD1 e p1111nm
 .