The Connecticut labor news., 1924-08-09

while declaring that 1t was impossible
 for him to renew an agreement and
 attach his signature, was willing to
 orally agree to maintain previous shop
 conditions and pay the wage scale
 desired, but shortly afterwards the president of the corporation gave an
 interview to the press, in which he
 asserted that no written or oral agree ment would be had with trade union | ists. This statement, coupled with the corporations developing anti-union
 policy, led to a strike against the
 Massachusetts Baking Company. The strikers picketed the shop; they carried
 banners, and the trade union move ment locally established boycott. The corporation took the usual steps. It applied for temporary in junction, and to assure success it ern- ployed Herbert A. Baker, Boston attorney who had represented cor ]: porations in Massachusetts in num- 1 Der of most important injunction cases which had been decided adversely to
  preme court. The striking bakers i'm mediately applied to the Springfield Central Labor Union for assistance and advice, advice being considered the most important in view of successive defeats which Springfield trade union
 ists had met with in the state supreme court when appealing from the injunc- ton which had been issued III the two famous local cases, those of the Moore Drop Forge Company and the Spring field Foundry Company. The Spring field attorneys who had defended the trade unionists in these two cases, ad- n1itted that in view of the decisions of the highest court the prospects of successful opposition to the issuing of the injunction were non-existant.
 The Central Labor Union ap- pointed a committee of which John F. Gate1ee was the chairman MT. Gate1ee, while business agent of the Having \ Picture Operators Union, neverthless, worked at his calling each day, but he had found time to make some study of the injunction ques- ton, and to realize that the legal meth
 ods which Springfield trade unionists had adopted in the past to protect their interests had been fruitless of satisfactory results. He believed that under existing equity court decisions 1t was practically impossible to secure even-handed justice. t.-.
 He reached the conclusion that 1t was a waste of money to again e1n- p1oy attorneys to represent the bakers in an effort to prevent the issuing ot the injunction. His associates agreed with him, and it was finally decided that MT. Gatelee would appear III court with the strikers; that they would ap- | pear without counsel, and would noti- | fy the court that they came without l counsel because of their conviction that counsel was of no avail. It was not their intention, however, to be silent as to their position. They believed l that the reasons for their appearing without counsel should be stated in definite language, and MT. Gate1ee as
 sumed responsibility for the prepara- ton af statement presenting their attitude and their reasons, which would be placed upon the judges bench as he prepared to issue the temporary re-
 straining order.
 Instead of the case coming first be-
 fore Springfield judge, it was brought
 before Justice Pierce of the state su-
 preme court sitting in Boston, Mass.
 The night before the hearing copies
 sented to court the following day, were
 given to representative of the Asso-
 ciated Press for the purpose of secur-
 ing as much publicity for the state