The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1921-02-16
Intimates Conspiracy.

IntimateS conspiracy.
isn't there a conspiracy of officials
of 1896 with Dixon and McAllister and
Alexander McAllister to get the Off
Gals of 1912 and Howat in JAIL Cal
lery asked.
"No,S Harvey replied.
/ Have you changed your views since
! the miners convention in Kansas
City
"No."
Did not you make motion in the
Kansas City convention to fine any
district official who appeals to the
industrial court s5.000?" Gallery de-
manded.
NO, I was chairman of commit
tee that made that report" Harvey
replied.
Gallery read from the record of the
convention what was said to be dar-
vey motion that fine of $4,000 be
levied and that five years in the prison
be added to it.
Alexander McAIlister was put on the
stand and Jackson asked what official
position he has held in local unions.
Gallery made an objection which was
overrdied.
Fines Unconstitutional.
Jackson asked McAllister if under
the U. NJ. w. A. constitution any $50
fine, except the fine for appealing to
the industrial court is possible. Nc
Allister said there is none. r. S.
Brennan took McAllister on cross-ex-
animation.
How many times have you been
thrown out OF the union ?" Brennan
asked McAllister,i long an opponent
of Howat in union affairs and the
writer of scores Of signed communi-
cations in the press criticizing Howat-
zone, by Howat," McAllister re-
piled.
Can you show in the constitution
where it can't fine members $50. for
other things?''
None that 1t can't but none that 1t
cam" McAllister replied.
mo one appointed you sole 1nter-'
prefer of the constitution ?" Brennan
asked.
NO" McAllister replied.
1.-The district president has the right
to interpret the constitution" Bren-
nan pursued.
Yes, but any member can appeal
to- the international president" Nc
Allister shot back.
you have been fighting the de-
PENDANTS for years." Brennan asked.
"Why do you deliver TRADES at
meetings and write letters to the press
seeking to discredit them?"
An objection to this question was
sustained.
The state closed its case at 1910.
Demurrer Is Moved.
Brennan moved a demurrer to the
evidence and asked for the discharge
of the defendants. One point offered
was that no copy of the injunction was
served on the defendants.
Brennan also alleged the fine notice
did not say what the fine was for and
that there was no proof whatever that
it was for appealing to the Industrial
court.
Judge Curran overruled the objec-
ton. The defense announced it would
stand on the demurrer and rested.
Jackson said there was other proof
that the fine was for the appeal to in
dustrial court in addition to the testi-
mony of McAllison and Dixon, If the
fine had been for something else the
local 1912 would not have given them
transfer. he said.
why did number 1896 turn down
the request for eollection?" Jackson
asked.
Every Objection Filed.
Nearly every objection known to the
legal mind was raised by labors coun-
sci to prevent trial of Howat on con-
tempt charge. But Judge Curran over
ruled them as fast as made and hear
ing was concluded after more than six
hours of testimony and argument.
Unable to halt the proceedings;
Howat was called to the stand and
declared again that the case of the
Mishmash boy was not taken to the
Industrial court for decision because
he did not consider the court constitu-
tional.
Howat Denounces Courts.
Asked If he didn't know he could
institute proceedings that would lead
to judgments for the laborer in wage
disputes, Howat replied:
i've never seen anything in courts
that would aid labor"
Howat testified he did not consider
he was violating the anti-strike in
junction when he called for walk
out because 81 didn't believe Judge
Curran would have tied US up to work
under such conditions as the Mishmash
case"
Called Strike "for Justice"
He insisted the strike was called for
one reason alone-to get Justice" for
the boy.
Those local union officials who face
contempt proceedings today are: Joe
Bierbrodt, president of local No. 1919;
~ nd