Perth Amboy evening news., 1913-02-11
COURTS SCORED
BY A. A. QUINN
Continued from page IL

present law the employer has a prop
erty right in the employe, and that
this should not exist in a free coun-
try. He declared that an employer
may now go into court In private,
with little evidence, and without the
opposition being heard, and contend
ing that he believes violence is about
to take place, and a restraining order
Is granted against the laboring men.
There are two sides to every la
Dor dispute" continued Mr.. Botter-
i'll, land the employer should not
have a right not extended to the
employe. 1t is an Injustice to labor
that such restraining orders can be
granted upon such ex-party hearings.
Both sides should have the same
remedy.
Henry Hilfers, Secretary of the Es-
sex Trades Councils, also advocated
the measure.
IAN injunction at times Is a good
thing for everyone" declared J. Will
liam Foster, OF the city. President OF
the New Jersey Manufacturers As
ISOLATION, In beginning his argument
against the bill. He declared that
his organization has $4,000 en-
ployes and an annual pay roll of $685.
100000. The cief argument he
made against the bill was that there
had arisen a new labor party. the In
dustrial Workers of World, whose
sole aim seemed to be violence, and
that. therefore, it would be danger
Gus to pass this legislation, He main
tanned that the New Jersey judiciary
p 1-,- ~, -, a-, rrI1kA.a. ., ,.nrf,nt,
ing order or an injunction Is justified
before it be allowed, and so it would
he a mistake, to interfere wi.h the
present law.
Mr.. Foster showed hOS the strike
of the porcelain workers IN this CRY
has been amicably settled by arbit-
ration, showing that there was COM
ing a closer relation between en-
ployers and employe, and that on this
account, too, it would be a wrong
step to put this law on the statute
book.
The chief argument against the
bill was made by NJ. M. Stallman. a
representing several big rail-
road companies, including the Lacka-
wanna.
He argued that right OF the rail-
road company to do business Is
greater than a property right and
that no law should be passed that
would interfere with such. right.
Ifs it possible" he queried, that
this enlightened age any legisla-
ture would seriously consider pass
.ng legislation OF this character"
He urged that the bill be not re-
hna1tycn ~ IL uyarn nosgoi ft |
you'd not only put the manufacture
IT'S, railroad and other big employers
If labor in peril, but the people of
he state as well.
During the progress OF each ar
the opposition frequently In
and at times this led to
red hot cross fire of attack aud
counter attack. Chairman Egan
md Mr.. Beekman. of the committee,
the bill did not take away |
my legal right now enjoyed by
manufacturers.
Mr.. Stallman then said: " / CUES
you haven't studied the bill"
To this Mr.. Egan replied: 81 have |
At studied your Interpretation of 1t.
Another opponent Of the bill was
George DeLaval, of Harrison, N. j.,
representing the Worthington Pump
Works. He said for information as
10 how manufacturers rights would
conserved under the bill. He in
sisted that a manufacturer should
have a right to an injunction to pre-
vent coertion against him in SYM
strikes, etc. The labor men
present insisted that no labor union
countenanced violence and strikes,
while the manufacturers insisted
that sympathetic strikes and coercion
were frequent ~occurances In labor
troubles. Mr.. Botterill protested
that manufacturers were amply pro-
by the bill, and the laboring
men were only asking for their
He said the same act was In
force in England.