New-York tribune., 1921-12-04
No State Probe
OF Cloak Strike.
At This Time
Counsel for Both Workers
Union and Employers Re
fuse To Be Parties to
Inquiry Before Board
Court Action Sought First
Injunction Proceedings Merit
Decision by Judicial Tri-
bunal, Attorneys Contend

OUAdAs fAttOKllCyS OOAtCAAu
There will be no present state In
vestigstion of the garment strike. Re-
fussls yesterday of counsel for both
the Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacture.
ers' Protective Association and the In
tcrnational Ladies' Garment Workers
Union to be parties to an inquiry be-
fore the board appointed by the State
Industrial Commissioner put off indei-
nitely the scheduled taking of testi-
mony.
Both sides insisted that, in view Of
the injunction proceedings brought by
the union, there should be a determi-
nation Of the legal aspects Of the sit
uation by a judicial tribunal. For an
hour or SO the debate moved back and
forth. At times it became sharp.
Commissioner Sayer and Chairman
Higgins upheld the right of the board
Of inquiry to proceed, but when Judge
Northrup, its counsel, attempted to call
the first witness Mr.. Untermyer said
he might we'll withdraw.
The board then announced, after q
brief conference, that it would sus-
pend its inquiry, further appearances
to be subject to notice.
Tho full membership of the board,
which consists of John D. Higgins, OF
Oswego, chairman; Marcus M. Marks,
clothing manufacturer and former
President of the Borough of Manhat-
tan, and Hugh Frayne, general organ
izer Of the American Federation Of
Labor, was on hand.
William Klein, attorney, and Max D.
Steuer. special counsel, appeared for
the manufacturers association, Morris
Hillauit, attorney, and Samuel Inter
myer, of counsel, representing the
union.
To suggestions of the lawyers rails
ing doubt as to the authority of the
board, its inability to enforce findings
and the contention that, in view of the
Injunction, precedence should be gives
the courts, it was replied that court
proceedings might take years, as in
the Danbury hatters' case, and that the
commissioner had endeavored to pre-
vent the strike IN the first place, and
had then appointed the board before
the Injunction proceedings were begun.
Mr.. Untermyer said that if the valid
ity Of the contract were established by
the courts the economic questions
could be settled by the parties among
themselves.
The first objection to the inquiry
was made by Mr.. Untermyer. While
tho industrial commissioner could in
vestigate the industry, he said, he could
not delegate this power to board.
Both parties must consent before it
could function, he declared, and as the
union had enjoined the manufacturer
association from violating the contract
and conspiring to enforce piece work
and longer hours on the workers, the
board should withhold its inquiry. He
said he thought it would be disrespect
full to the court to proceed.
When Chairman Higgins stated
firmly that he believed the causes Of the
strike to lie much deeper than the
contract and that the inquiry had been
begun before the injunction was had,
Mr.. Untermyer disclaimed any inten-
tion to oust the board by going to
court.
"Why you should break into our stu
alton before we go before legal tri-
bunal is difficult for me to compre-
hend," Mr.. Untermyer remarked.
II reject the imputation," Commits
siouter Sayer replied, "that this board is
trying to inject itself into a situation
that is now before the courts. This de-
partment began it's investigation long
before the strike was called, long be-
fore there was any conception of q
court action"
Mr.. Steuer did not object to an eco
nomic investigation, but opposed fatty
determination by the board of the
existence or non-existence of con-
tract. In addition, he did not intend,
he said, to discuss termipology, refer
ring to the present "week-work" system
and the "piece-work" demanded by the
cauitably adjusted, under whatever
name, he said. and it was for the court
to pass upon the question of con-
tract.
Mr.. Hillquit then took up the unions
side, holding closely to the contract is
sue and calling the boards attention
to the authority behind a court de-
cision.
Mr.. Untermyer seemed to grow impa-
tient at the tenacity with which the
state officers clung to their opinions.
He drew distinction between the
board and "the paid officers" of the
labor department that brought warm
reply from Commissioner Sayer. The
protest was echoed by Judge North
rup, who jumped out of his chair and
called for Louis Lustig, of the manu-
facturers, to take tho stand ut once.
All the counsel objected, Mr.. Uuter-
iryer concluding by announcing his re-
tirement. The board then Withdrew.
When it returned Chairman Higgins
announced that formal decision would
be held in allegiance pending definite
conclusion, when the parties would be
notified. He believed an adjustment
could be reached to resume work with
out prejudice tc either side.