The Connecticut labor news., 1921-05-27
ANTI-STRIKE BILL
(COntinued from First PagcD

cd. Leader Buckley said he did not de- sire to cut off discussion If 1t was desired and withdrew the motion.
 Mir. Bell of Salisbury offered an amendment aimed to eliminate legislation directed against federal employees The amendment was also intended to soften the drastic injunction powers given the courts by the bill. He said the bill was of great importance. He said preiudiCes should not be allowed to influence action on the bill. The right of labor to or ganize was recognized, he said. The bill, he said, struck at the fundamental basis ot all strikes, in its attempt to prevent in duStrlal warfare He thought he dis covered signs of the big stick in the bill
 In reply to question asked by Leader Buckley MT. Bell said the bill prevented any and all strikes. It Is too oppressive in character, he said. The matter would never be settled by legislation He said the approach must be made in another way. lie desired a spirit of conciliation
 MT. Bliss of Clinton moved that each speaker be limited to five minutes So voted.
 Mir. Nickerson said section 1 consti- | tuteS declaration of what IS unWarrant- ed industrial warfare. He said the bill did not mean more than 1t contained and that 1t did not aim at any one union or organization. He said there wasn't any, thing wrong about giving every man the right to work Under the act he said an employe unjustly locked out, could bring the employer into a court of equity
 Slsisky Attacks Measure.
 Mir. MeeCh of West Hartford support ed the Bell amendment. MT. Sisisky of ! Enheld also backed the amendment. He said under the bill an employer could terminate the employment of an employe who belonged to labor union. The bill rested on dangerous round, he declarged. He described the labor troubles Ill Thompsonville, town of Enfield and the the hardship worked on the union labor CTS. He explained how it was attempt ed to arbitrate. The state arbitration commssiorr he charged, had no power. In its six years of existence eighteen labor disputes were laid before the Com- mission In each case the manufacturers refused to submit to arbitration.
 "On this very day." said Mr. Sislsky, four families are being eviCted from the company owned homes because they refused to submit to the employers de- mands.'
 It was called to the attention of the speaker by Mr. Bailey of Durham, that Mr. Sisisky had already consumed five minutes Mr. Sherwood of Westport and Mr. Fitzpatrick of Bridgeport in | formed the House that they assigned their allotment of time to MT. Sislsky. i The gentleman from Enfield continued | to discuss the measure.
 Urges Arbitration. He urged that the General Assembly | give the arbitration CO1nm1ss1on full pow CT to hear both sides of disputes and to reach a satisfactory solution of the problem.
 MT. Hall moved the previous ques- ton on MT. Bells amendment. So voted.
 Leader Buckley pointed out no new | features had been injected into the situation. He said the natural tune tions of labor unions would not be embarrassed The bill, he said, was entirely meriterious. He said the l bill should not be considered on grounds of political expediency which had been injected into the situation MT. Bells amendment was rejected. Asks for Roll Call. MT. Wall of Torrington moved for roll call vote on the original bill.
 Leader Buckley declared it was inn material to him, but that much time would be wasted.
 MT. Atchison of Sherman moved indefinite pOStpOnement. Leader Buckley pointed out that the motion was out of order. Sustained by the speaker.
 Speaker Huxford, citing precedents of the national House of Representa- tives, ruled the roll call motion was out of order, the roll call having pre- viously been refused. Speaker Huxford said the gentle man from Torrington could appeal from the ruling of the chair.
 Leader Buckley inquired whether Mr. Wan had appealed from the speakers ruling. The speaker said he had heard no appeal made.
 Speaker Huxford asked MT. Wall to | discuss the ruling on the ground that ,uch discussion could be had if the ! speaker wished it.
 MT. Wall read from the House journal the statement of the speaker which amended the record on the | original discussion of the bill. He | claimed the original status of the | roll call had been vacated.
 Speaker Huxford explained the l amended record read that the orig inal motion for a roll call did not l prevail.
 Reject Postponement.
 MT. Atchison's motion to postpone | indefinitely was rejected
 Leader Buckley moved the previous question on his motion to adopt the | bill. So voted.
 Mr. Stoddard demanded that under the constitution the yeas and nays be | entered in the journal. The speaker ruled him out of )order
 MT. Stoddard asked if he could re- peat a conversation with the speaker l in the lobby. Leader Buckley said the | question was not proper.
 Mr. Dunn of Hartford moved that | the House adjourn. The motion was defeated.
 Mr. Wall moved indefinite post ponement. The speaker ruled him out of order
 Bill Adopted.
 The speaker put Leader Buckley's | motion to vote. Voice vote doubted, | On a rising vote the bill was adopted, I36 to C..
 Leader Buckley moved reconsider ation hoping the motion would be re- jected MT. De Roster called for yea and nay vote. Leader Buckley with drew his motion and moved that the | House adjourn.