Waterbury evening Democrat., 1906-07-11
|BnONS0N WAS SARCASTIC
10 Weuld JalI hs Stikers Attorney 1 kennody's Ab|e Argument.

~ Attorney Kennedy spoke 8 great deal longer than did Attorney Bron-, lson in the hearing to dissolve the Rmaster builders injunction on the workmen in the superior court yes terday and at times his emotion and enthusiasm ran away with him.
 In the course of his eloquent arg ument he said that this fight is sub stantially . fight between two unions, one union of employees and the oth- CT union of employers. We went out to get work" said Mir Kennedy, but we found we could not get 1t In Waterbury. Now what is a Treat? If these defendants said to he plaintiffs we shall not work for you If you engage non-uni0n men, was 1t not lawful threat? And didn't they have the right to make 1t? If they said to non-union men, , Have you fellows got our places? Why don't you join our union?' and if the men did join the union and QuN work for the plaintiffs had they not the right to do so! Had they not as much right to say that as the em- pl0yers had to say. If you leave us. you won't get job in the whole state of Connecticut?' We say this injunction should not stand because 1t was obtained by people who are themselves not within the law.
 What rights have been violated? It is because these defendants told MT A. B. and c. they did not care to work for the plaintiffs and that they should be enjoined doing so again? What damages have these plaintiffs suffered? What irreparable loss has been sustained by them? Not any.
 Ut is no more wrong for Corr or any one else to say to Beeches (agent for the builders association) as he travels through the state picking up sending them to Waterbury and that this man has no right to send non- union men to this town than 1t is for him and his friends to say they will not work for the plaintiffs. This talk of threatening danger and congre- gating on the streets is all nonsense. Not blow has been struck. Not an agry word uttered. No damages have been inflicted, but what the plaintiffs were the means of bringing upon themselves.
 "This Is not a case of employers against employe, but case of com bination of employers against em- ployes. That Is our contention and we can prove 1t by those whose soiled hands touched the papers that pro- hibited them getting work.
 Would your honor issue an in- Junction if the fact was shown that an employer was endeavoring to stop an employe from getting work and advertised that employe all over New England? We have witnesses here who can show that this is what is going on all over the state. The plaintiffs feel 1t their bounden duty to employ none but non-union men. Have we gone and obtained an in- !. junction against them for not hiring union men? No, but to these men we say, Will you join our union? and the men say they will and they join and that is the end of 1t. Do we say that the plaintiffs have no right to keep open shop If they see fiti No, we say hire whom you please and we will do what we please. It Is an open competition. There is not a spark of justice in this injunction. We all dis. like strikes and discord and 1 say now that our side is willing to let his honor decide between both par ties. Are you willing to leave 1t to his honor?" to Mir Bronson. who said nothing.
 These defendants do not seek to harm anybody. but as O rule Is 1t not true that all skilled men are union men and are they not crying out for better buildings and are there not less accidents on buildings and other places where union labor is em- ployed? There is not man mentioned in this complaint who has been em- ployed by the Chatfields since last fall. There is not man mentioned in the complaint but has been re- fused employment by them. Then why did they obtain this injunction? William Bowes. president of the union, worked for the Chatnelds for fifteen years. but last fall he was utSCudI Hcu. blu uc ihtCiAShD Wtsh tuU Chatfields? Not at all. Corr and one or two others did pay the fares of men out of town because the men had not the money. The Chatfields would not give 1t to them. They were brought here under a misapprehen- sion. 1 have not made a statement to-day that I cannot prove, unless have been terribly deceived"
 Mir Kennedy then read the circular issued from the headquarters of the builders association In Bridgeport warming all members to be on the lookout for strikers from Waterbury and telling them they ought to know what to do with them. intimating quite strongly to give them no work.
 Mir Bronson then replied. He said that if the situation that existed be- fore the injunction was issued was threatened to be repeated, the in- junction should prevail. The injury done to the plaintiffs. he said. is ir- reparable Though the Chathelds are financially responsible, yet they had been unable to obtain workmen until after the injunction was issued, and the injunction ought to stand as it Ia. Mir Kennedy, he said. could not prove there was no boycotting. no coercion. but Mfr Bronson's clients could prove there was. It made no difference whether or not the plaintiffs are members of an association: that was no reason why the defendants should be allowed to boycott. threaten and eocrce. If the injunction Is removed they will threaten and coerce again. Even if the plaintiffs did discharge