The voice of labor. (Cumberland, Md.) 1938-1942, 1939-02-02
Pifling Pete?

AAAAA5 wv
City Solicitor Charles L. Hcskc', Ha. D.
court ono day last week defending Celia
nese worker who wa found guilt o. huff
ing one OF his fellow workers
lie used The occasion to repeat the charS'
Of the quietly departed Brother par '.a'
the States Attorney vas laN III prosecuting
alleged Incidents Of awe~.ue.- tacn
promptly fed from the court room without
awaiting to hear Morgan {. Harris answer
First. let us state that We are mott inter-
rsted in taking up the cudgcis for tie >'atc'~
Attorneys office That is matter w'.cn
he is able to perform himself.
But. We are interested in the Statement,
made By Mr.. Hcskctt and drawing public
notice to few incidents which intimately
concern the one who SELF righ,eou,v pro-
claims Tor law and order.
Heskett said there have oeeu at least one
hundred cases OF assaults committed upon
non.uniOn people al the Celanc,e plant since
August. Well We don't believe word OF il
We are willing TO add that We doubt Hcskett
could produce names or Incidents q even
twenty such cases.
But. even taking Heske;t Al his InbcIiey-
able figures, We wonder why the plant police
have not reported the situation officially ?
We wonder why the alleged victims have not
complained?
Heskett says the victims are inundated
and frightened to appeal TO the law. Does ne
seriously assert that he knows cases Che
Ia, 80
August where people are afraid TO take the
remedies afforded by law? And that as an
attorney and a legal representative Of the
Celanese Corporation he has done nothing
except to make an emotional outburst before
court which convicted his own client on All
assault charge: Further. he did not even
remain TO hear an answer 10 his complaint
Frankly, it is hard 10 believe that ever
Mr.. Heskett expects the public at ar2e tc
place any credcncs in his tale
Again. We say that we do not believe :
word Of it. To be brutally frank We charge
Mr.. ieskett with making an effort to re
vive the anti-laoor hySteria which his client
Brother Dan so auspiciouSly commenced II
this community
Come TO think 81 il. wasn't il Charles 4
lieskett who was advertised 10 speak Al
the notorious City Plaza meeting the wceh
before the Celanese union contract expired
Even though he eventually ran out and di,
not speak except to later declare it 'ill-ilm,
cd and ill-adyised"
Is it the same Charles T. Hcshett Wnt
framed the present anti-picketing ordinance
as City Solicitor while his clients the y. &
q. Taylor Tin Mill we're on the picket lines
Is it the same Charles z. Heskett whose
activities as both City Solicitor and attor,
nel for certain corporations become so in.
VOWED at times that he appears 10 he IN
the position Of representing both sides OF
a case at one and the same 'ime?
Is it the same Law and order specialist
who says that the L. $ Supreme Court hand
bill decision docs not apply here
We will ask another question? Does Hes
kett really want law and order observed i'm
partially in this community? Because if he
does We would suggest that he read the
statement made some months ago by the
Commissioner Of Public Safety in Cumber-
land There are several ugly rumors cir
culating as to the identity of the under
world czar of Cumberland that Mr.. Heskctt
might be able TO aid law and order in BY
tracking down.
If Mr.. Heskett thinks he is TO be allowed
TO make his anti-labor statements without
being called on for proof he is going to be
mistaken. Nor is the notorious SEARCH
LIGHT still here to aid the anti-labor
crusade.
We have a suggestion. It is, that I'M
less Mr.. Heskett is also frightened and in
undated he make public the names and
dates of the more than one hundred cases
of assault upon non-union workers at the
Celanese plant.
II he does not come through we believe
that the labor movement should change their
present name Of Exemption Pete and bring
il up to date with the more suitable term
"Piffling Pete