Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1918-03-02
COMING 10 AUGUSTA
WILBUR THEATRE,

mch2-7
but had said they knew nothing of
strike there. The men had been given
five dollars each and had returned to
Massachusetts, from whence they
came.
Deputy Sheriff Frank L. Gipson stat
ed that since the hearing he had been
on duty in Madison continually.
Edward James Tirrell, an employee
of the Madison Wooden Co, said that
on Feb. IS as he was going to work
he saw Mike Patrick on the street and
that Patrick had turned around and
said: There go couple Of rats"
There was a large crowd around at
the time. Witness said that his wife
works at the mill, but wanted to give
up work if the men continued to yell
at her. And he said that the young
girls that boarded at the house were
getting sick Of it.
William Burton testified that he was
walking on the street behind Tirrell on
Feb. 10, when Mike Patrick had hol-
Tered: Hello Bill. you're rat; there
go two rats ahead Of you" Witness
had answered Patrick, saying: ''All
right, Mike. we'll let it go at that"
Upon cross examination witness said
he was mad when Patrick called him
a rat, and that he will get through
his work if they keep on hollering at
him.
Deputy Sheriff Gipson said he had
no knowledge Of this. although since
the injunction was issued there had
been a good deal Of hollering rats"
and "scabs."
Mike Patrick. the defendant in the
case. brought up at the hearing. ad-
mitted that q week ago last Friday he
lad hollered to Burton, and had said
to him: Hello. Bill. are you a rat?"
And defendant said Burton had an
swered: yet. I am. all right" Pat
rick testified that he Gid not say:
There 20 two rats or call Burton or
anyone q rat.
The testimony given by Patrick was
corroborated by Mike Kora. who is
also a Slav. Kora said he was with
Patrick upon the occasion in question.
The case was then argued by Attor-
ney Butler for the defendant and At
torney Nelson for the Madison Wool
en- Co.
Justice Spears Statement
Justice Spear then made the follow
ing statement regarding the matter:
Several weeks ago the Madison
Wooden Co. brought bill in equity.
setting forth certain facts. and ask
ing an injunction to restrain the lapof
Unions, several Of them. at Madison.
.loH1 interfering with the employees CT
the Madison WOODEN Co. That bill SET
out vaJ ious acts Of interference. l Will
not repeat unnecessarily. nearing
was had. Evidence was presented. ana
no defence was made. No evidence was
put in against the evidence of the Mad
ison Wooden Co. on its bill In equity,
asking for an INJUNCTION.
THE evidence was sufficient. in tie
mind Of the court, to warrant it IN is
suing the injunction. and that inll'nc-
ton was issued by the clerk of courts,
and properly served upon these vari-.
I Cuus respondents. Now the question
here is. today, not upon the merits OF
that bill. but whether that injunction
of the court has been violated by any
of these organizations or members or
these examinations. 1t is a question
! whether the mandate of this court Is
to prevail-whether it Is to be re-
spected, or whether 1t can be set aside.
That is the only question here.
"\ow it is unne ccssnry for me 10
say to the good citiz ems OF the state
Of Maine that the mandate OF the court
must be respected. This Is an inter-
locutory mandate. so to speak. issuing
a temporary injunction against the
4 acts which were proven at the near
ing to have been committed by mem
hers of these organizations. When the
final hearing Is had on the merits OF
the case, and the defence IS put In,
1 then arises the question as to wheth-
err. under the evidence us it shall then
appear, from the whole case. the tenn
porary injunction shall be made per-
\ manent. In the meantime. however, the
temporary injunction Is the mandate
Of the court 1t is the law governing
the action Of these bodies. and mast
be respected
Now think l fully understand this
situation, and in order to understand
it, we must comprehend the spirit Of
the situation on both sides Of this case.
And It Is the spirit Of the situation
which controls the action on the one
side and the other, and which has
been manifested by what is done upon
the one side and the other. When the
final hearing is had, what that spirit
will show do not undertake to say.
But at the present time this injunc-
ton must be obeyed. and any acts
which are in violation of that injunc-
ton must be restrained.
Now every case has its setting. The
facts and circumstances which sur
round it have a great deal to do with
enabling courts. and juries even, to
ascertain the truth Of the situation
This case has its setting: and in. view
Of all the circumstances and surround
ings, I am OF opinion that the con-
duct Of this respondent who IL brought
lin here, almost upon his own state