The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1914-08-21


Mr.. Thompson: During those
strikes, | take it, there was no de-
struction of the private property of
the employers? I
Mr.. Gill: No, sir; never any de-
struction of private property in this
city while | have been mayor in any
strike that l can recall.
Mr. Thompson: Were there acts of
violence committed during the strike?
Mr. Gill: Oh, of course there are
always street fights and fist fights be-
tween men. Take during the team
sters strike there was a good deal of
fighting, some men were beaten oc-
casionally. Nobody could ever very
well say on whom the blame could be
laid. Just as many times it was the
men hired by the team owners, the
employers association, as it was by
the men themselves. The men en-
ployed to break this strike would go
armed, and there would be bitter per
sonal feeling, of course, between the
men once in a while but there never
was in my opinion any violence which
was sanctioned by the union strikers.
| never could see that they sanctioned
anything of the kind. A few hot
headed fellows would get out and fight.
The same was true in the old machin-
lists strike On the contrary the shop
owners used as much violence as any
BODY else. I remember one factory
that undertook to turn hose on
lot of employees in the street. They
had a right ITO be in the street. They
have used as much violence as the
men have.
Mr. Thompson: What is your op1n-
ion from these two experiences which
you state, with reference to the adj
visibility or necessity of the employ
ers using private guards?
Mr.. Gill: l don't think they should
be allowed to use them. | don't think
any private individual should be given
police authority to use in fight
icemen should be impartial men and
don't think an employers policemen
are impartial men any more than /
think the labor mems policemen would
be impartial. | don't think they should
be allowed to use them while they are
making a fight They should be put
on the same basis and fight it out.
Commissioner Garretson: Do you
believe that it is any greater incon-
sstency under our laws for laboring
men to band themselves together, as
armed bands than it is for their en-
ployers to maintain armed guards?
Mr. Gill: No, think if one is going
to be allowed to maintain an armed
band, the other should, l don't think
either of them should.
Commissioner Garretson: agree
with you.
Mr.. Thompson: What views do you
take of chief executives of cities han
ding the police directly for the pur-
pose of bringing about Cancellation or
arbitration where either of the parties
don't want it?
Mr.. Gill: Well, have only had the
one experience. Now, here was the
way this transfers strike situation
worked. The city was full of special
policemen, there were fifty of them.
The minute those fifty men were let
out there was in my opinion better
control of the whole situation than
when they were in. They were men
who didn't know police business. Some
of them may have been biased one
way, and some probably the other. 1t
aggravated the situation rather than
aided it, and the minute those men
were out-and so far as that is con-
cerned, except as l say in isolated in
stances where a couple OF these men
met and had private fight of their
own, we never had any disorder. And
I never had any disorder 70 contend
with on the part of the labor unions
in this city. They never violated any
ordinances. They may have got out
and claimed to do things which they
had a right to do. The biggest man
in the employers association is man
that could not see the rights of the
individual as against the manufactur-
ing corporations under any conditions,
nor don't want to, nor never will But
the ordinary kind Of man will. And
have never had as much trouble yet
here from the standpoint of violence,
organized violence, turning the hose
on the men-I never had anything
from the men: it is the employer who
tbat bovo Lod