The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1908-02-18
JAIL SENTENCES FOR
TYPOGRAPHICAL UAI0NISTS
Fines and approximation Three
Officers Of big Six" New York.
VIOLATED COURT INJUNCTION
Sentenced to 20 Days Imprisonment
and $3.50 Fine Each For Per-
hitting Strike Violence - Case
Goes TO Court of Appeals.

lNSW lUfh Oil9.--- 4 III &c OluCEIS,
past and present. of Typographical
Union No. 6, better known as big
Six, were ordered committed to Lud-
low Street Jail for twenty days and
fined $3.50 each, and two members of
the union were fined $106 each by
Justice Bischoff, of the Supreme
Court, for violating the terms of a
Supreme Court injunction.
The men thus summarily ordered
punished are.
Patrick H Mccormick, ex-president
Of Big Six. sentenced to twenty
days Imprisonment and to pay fine
of $3.50.
George W. Jackson, organizer,
similar sentence
Vincent j. Costello, ex-organizer, a
similar sentence.
William ]. S. Anderson, fined 800.
Thomas Bennett, fined 500.
The cause of this drastic action
dates back to a period in 1906 when
Typographical Union No. ordered
strike against the association of mas
ter printers known as the Typothetae
of the City OF New York. The men
struck for a closed shop and an eight
hour day, which the employers re-
fused to grant
The Typothetae took counsel and,
on the plea that the strikers were
practicing intimidation against their
employees who remained at work, JUS
tice Blanchard granted an injunction
restraining the officers and members
of Typographical Union No. from
interfering with the workmen who
remained with the Typothetae.
Shortly thereafter Robert C. Beat
ty. counsel for the Typothetae, APP
piled to the Supreme Court for the
punishment of officers and members
of the Union for contempt of court in
failing to obey the terms of the in
junction Mr.. Beatty charged that
the acts of violence complained of
were still being perpetrated, and
made specific charges against certain
members of the union. I
Upon these representations JUS
tice Bischoff appointed Adam Wiener,
of No. 800 Broadway, referee to
take testimony in the controversy
and to report back to the court. The
referee continued his hearings until
December last, and a short time ago
submitted his report to Justice Bis
choff. The latter afirms the report,
and says:
THE findings of the referee upon
the questions specified in the order
of reference are all supported by the
evidence of the full degree of cogency
and probative value required for the
purpose of the proceeding.
THE questions involved have been
NIL " cd w 70 in q
opinion filed with his report, and
am in accord with the reasoning en-
ployed by him. If the solemn orders
of this court are to have any efficacy,
punishment sufficient as deterrent
should be visited upon the respond
ents whose disobedience has been es-
tablished in the present case; and l
am satisfied that the mere imposition
of fine in the present case, within
the statutory limit of $3.50, would
afford no adequate penalty in the case
of the officers of the respondent asso-
citation, but would rather operate as
fixing small fine at which exemption
from the embarrassing features of an
injunction might be purchased. AS
to the other respondents, who are OPP
Grating at daily wages, fine is pre-
sumed sufficient punishment.
In the usual course of things an
order would be entered, on notice to
all parties concerned, reciting the
decision and the penalties, and fol-
lowing that the men would have ts
begin their terms of Imprisonment in
Ludlow street jail and pay the fines.
But it was agreed among counsel that
an appeal would be taken from Judge
Bischoff's decision and stay of the
order obtained meanwhile. What,
ever the decision of the Appellate
Division, it is certain that the Court
of Appeals will be asked to pass on
the matter before any final order is
entered, as both sides realize the i'm
portance of the decision.
Lawyer Robert c. Beatty, who rep
resents the Typothetae in the proceed
ings, said that he was immensely
pleased with the decision and ex-
pected that it would be upheld by
the highest courts.
1T is the first time, he said, "that
such decision has been rendered
with penalties of sufficient Importance
to the violators of injunctions issued
in labor cases to make the punished
feel the weight of the law. Mere
fines, which can be paid by the union
out of its funds or by special assess
ment, are of no practical use in de-
barring men from doing what these
men did, namely, urge on their fol-
lowers to disregard the Courts orders
and proceed in their plans of threats,
assaults and intimidations without
hindrance, as though there had been
no such injunction issued.
Alfred ]. Talley, counsel for the
union men, said that he believed the
decision would be reversed on appeal,
as the men punished acted, he
thought, without full knowledge of
the effect and meaning of the Courts