Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-02-08

| y,
X X a. x X X 4 x x x X
! that because of such boycott mo one will
| dare to deal with the employer" is wholly
| gratuitous and unfounded.
| Alleged Picketing Denied.
/ The allegations of the bill with reference
! 10 picketing are declared to be unsustained
| by reference to any fact and are absolutely
/ unfounded, except that members of the
| union have observed employees going to and
| from their work and have used such per-
| suasion as was possible to induce them to
| join the union, and they never interfered
| with them or INSTRUCTED them by intimida-
| ton or force or threats of doing So and
| that they have learned from the af1idavits
| of the complainantS that some of them are
under, contract with a man named Flagg in
| New York, and that the compliments have
| Sustained from producing the contract.
! Such contracts are. absolutely Illegal and
| void, 1t Is commended, as work could be re-
| fused to the workmen without exposing the
| employer to any liability, although they
were framed in such deceitful manner as
| to cause the employe to believe that they
| possessed validity
The fact that complainants' employees
were not subjected to fear would be mani
| fest, it is asserted. from perusal of the
| affidavits, showing that they had met the
members of the union repeatedly and in the
most friendly manner possible, making APP
! pointments from time to time and keeping
| them and socially eating and drinking with
| them. That the constant instructions of the
| union and of the members of Its eight-hour
committee have been to see that everything
! in the nature of violence or threats of vio-
lence should be avoided.
| The defendants deny that the complain
| ants maintain what is called an open
shop" and that they employ xorkmen with
4 out regard to any question as to whether
| they belong to the union or not. On the
! contrary they say that the complainants
| have closed their offices to union men since
January 4. 1906 and have. sought to disrupt
and destroy the union, and that the bringing
| of the suit without foundation, in point of
| fact, was in pursuance of said policy; that
| the contract which the compliments offered
their employees provided that the employees
! should not join in any strike absent
| themselves during any strike If their pres
ence was required by the employers, mean
| Ing that the employee could not remain
| member of the union and continue with the
| employer, as the employee would be COM
| PEELED under his contract in the event of
strike, either to violate the contract or to
violate his obligation to the union, which
obligation was well known to the complain
ants. That in consequence of the forego-
| ing, the offices controlled by the typothetae
were absolutely closed against union men
| and it was untrue that the typothetae were
conducting ''open shops"
The answer denies that the union has con-
| spired with other labor organizations to in
| jure the compliments, or that In the strike
| they have had any association with other
organizations. All Information as to the
details of written contracts of employment
denied, save that they are advised that such
contracts, If any, were. utterly null and
void.
Battered Away Liberty
The answer further states that since the
filing of the bill the defendants have learned
that several of the sfgners of the aff1davits
for the compliments under alleged con-
tract with one Flagg of New York, and that
the typothetae pays them SIS week and
that Flagg pays some sum in excess land
that they are transported by said Flags
from town to town, wherever he thinks
they can be most useful as strike breakers,
and that thereby they have bartered away
their liberty of movement and right to
choose their place of labor"
Answering the eighth paragraph the de-
PENDANTS admit that they have spoken to
some of the employees of the compliments,
but deny any system of picketing or con-
gregation in front of or near the places of
business of the compliments; or that they
have maintained near such places rowdies
and thugs" and they say that the COM
plainants must have known this allegation
to have been false and unfounded when
they made 1t. and that it was simply insert
ed in the bill of complaint for the purpose
of affecting the mind of the court and preJu-
dicing the public and without justification
and excuse.
InGy DENY lndI on any occasion mas ElO-
lence ever been resorted to by union men,
and say that the only instance of violent
character alluded to in the compliments
affidavits was when one Mcintosh, en-
ployed by the complainant Howard, struck
severely a member of the union. On the
other hand, they say that one of the as
sociates of the compliments in the office
of George Gibson, without provocation ''at-
tackled and SCARED member of the union,
who is inferior in size and weight, and was
only prevented from doing him serious in
jury by the interference of Others" while
another man employed by the compliments
urged upon then non-urion man that he
should resort to nefarfous and dangerous
methods in his dealings with members of
the union, as is said to be shown by affi-
davits attached.
The answer further denies that the de-
PENDANTS have brought from other cities
men who have been engaged there in COM
hitting assaults upon non-union men, and
they point out that the man who In one
of the affidavits was said to have been rec
ogniZed as having assaulted in Cincinnati
one of compliments employees, never, in
fact, had been In Cincinnati except when
passing through on the train and never
having met the man In question except In
this city, and never assaulted him, any
where, and they say that such 1imsy, I'M
founded and hearsay statements are placed
In the bill of complaint for no other reason
than to prejudice the defendants and to af-
feet particularly, the minds of the public
Threatening Non-Union Men.
The answer denies the allegation that the
union has force of more than thirty men
which 1t Is about to use for the purpose of
threatening non-union men. and says that 1t
would be simply silly. IL it were not mis-
chievous, and that 1t Is absolutely baseless."
Referring to the allegation of the bill of
complaint that several non-union men were
surrounded by union men on January "a.
and one OF them, Edward L. Mcintosh, vio-
lently assaulted, they state that the fact
was that Mcintosh, when In restaurant In
the course of discussion. struck severely
one OF the union men and was struck back
at by another, That the trouble was at
once ended and good terms between all con-
cerned were restored, as Is evidenced by
half a dozen affidavits filed with the answer.
and further manifest from the fact that all
parties concerned then and thereafter con-
tinued upon the most friendly relations,
while of three of the non-union men then
present two, on at least two occasions, had
proceeded to union rooms without molesta-
lion. awaiting themselves of courtesies
there. That the afddavits attached viii