The San Francisco call., 1906-06-16


of the Brunswick 10 Fort Bragg no fire
or, boat drill was had; that the crew
were greenhorns and incompetent, and
that one man steered the ship all the
way from Fort Bragg to this city. Cap
tain Ellifson and Mate Olsen admitted
that there had been no fire drill or boat
drill but that on aceount OF the rough
weather and the necessity of watching
the lashings of the heavy deck load il
was not deemed safe to have the drill.
The law requires driH once a week,
and the voyage occupied only three
days. so the captain claim. he did not
violate the law. He ard the mate
swore also that the crew were COM
petent and that the ship was steered
men on the way UP. The case was
taken under advisenient
ASK FURUSETH TO EXPLAIN.
The following statement was given
out yesterday by the executive com
Transportation Association:
AS Mr.. Furuseth has succeeded lin
tying up the entire water front of San
Francisco. and is now appealing for
in a number of statements grossly mis-
Representing the facts. it might be in
teresting TO the people of San fran
ing questions which we address ID him:
l. Can YOU substantfate the state
ment made in your letter read before
the Central Federated Trades of New
York on ,fine 8. in part as follows;
Almost everybody is out with a big
knife. cutting for himself: This city
has got it hard and is still getting it
from the landlords and public service
corporations. It-SeemS there will be
general effort to cut wages, instead of
keeping them up?"
, Can you cite any attempt on the
part of corporations puolic or private.
or any large employers of labor in this
city. TO reduce wages since the 18th of
April. 1906?
g. Is il not true that the Seamen's
Union held meeting shortly after the
fire, agreed not TO advance wages and
so notified Mr.. Fritch. secretary of the
Steamship Association, through Mr.. Ell
ison. acting secretary o. the union?
1. Is it not also true that shortly
after your return from Washington you
ignored and repuGiated the action
taken at the e-mentioned meeting,
1t which you were not present, made
demand upon the Steamship Associa-
cipitated the controversy that has tied
up the entire shipping interests of the
cOast2
sEAMEN ACT VERY BADLY.
5. You agreed with Mr.. Hanify, the
representative OF the Steamship Asso-
citation, that, during NEGOTIATIONS all
vessels loading would be allowed to
complete their voyage to the home port
at the old rate OF wages If so, how
do you Justify your action in instruct
ing crews of vessels, lying at South
ern California ports on uncompleted
voyages and partially unloaded, TO de-
sert said vessels unless the demands of
the unien were complied with?
8. After the steamer Francis H. Leg
gett had taken on passengers at Re
dondo and before she had completed
her VOYAGE to San Francisco. did you
not order her crew to leave the vessel
unless YOUR demands We're met, thus
leaving her in an outside port, without
sailors 10 handle the lines?
l. Was il not your intention, when
you published the agreement of the
captain Of the Leggett to pay these
demands, TO mislead your union and to
convey to the public the impression
that the owners would henceforth com
ply with your demands, when you knew
that the captain had met your demand
in order to complete the voyage and
bring his vessel to the home port?
s. You have made a statement to the
public through the press that the sail
Ors were leaving the vessels because
they could make more money ashore
than they could at sea How do you
reconcile this statement with your pres
ent endeavors to prevent the operation
Of these vessels by acts of violence and
intimidation on the part OF your union
sailors and members of their allied or
ganizations at San Pedro, Portland,
Aberdeen and Eureka?