Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

ing four-page papers during the week days and turning out what they considered ridiculous make-shifts for Sunday papers on the first Sunday after the strike. The men are still out, but publishers declared in July that all other papers but one were working on a 100 per cent efficiency basis and the one upon an efficiency basis of about 90 per cent.

The Publishers' Association men feel that George L. Berry, president of the International Pressmen's union, has dealt a death blow to his organization. They say they doubt if the funds at hand will suffice to pay the men their strike benefits. The headquarters of the union are in Rogersville, Tenn.

The Chicago Federation of Labor, Sunday, July 21, voted to assess a tax upon its federated unions to raise $25,000 to put into the plant of the Chicago Daily World.

When pressmen and others struck in Chicago, some weeks ago, the World, a labor daily, was substantially the only daily paper not more or less handicapped. The result was, it had street sales, the like of which it never saw before and probably never will see again. This started in the minds of the Chicago laborites the idea that they could make the World a big influential daily, and the assessment movement is the result. A member of the carpenters' union put the resolution in at the meeting of the federation and it carried by a large vote, according to the columns of the World itself.

Meanwhile the big Chicago papers were only embarrassed for a few days, and are now having their usual street sales. A big effort by labor to boom its paper is, however, being made and boys cry the World on the sidewalks near the corner news stands that are features in Chicago.

Appointed Officers

Elliot H. Goodwin, New York, secretary of the National Civil Service Reform League, has been appointed. executive secretary of the new Chamber of Commerce of the United States; D. A. Skinner, assistant chief of the

Bureau of Manufacture, is assistant secretary, and Grosvenor Dawe, former managing director of the Southern Commercial congress, is chief of the editorial division.

MEN TORTURED

Dock Strikers in London Resort
to Terrible Cruelty

Dock strikers in London, England, are resorting to unparalleled cruelties. toward men who are earning their living along the docks; resorting to torture, according to press cables. One of these, printed in the Cincinnati Enquirer July 14, says:

The case of Patrick Sullivan, the 62-year-old man, who was badly injured by a strike picket at Tilbury, robbed of his last shilling and compelled to obtain pass to walk in the road, will be raised in the House of Commons today by Mr. Amery, who will question the home secretary on the subject.

Mr. McKenna will also be asked by Mr. Hunt whether he is aware that thousands of men are hiding in the docks, afraid to go home because gangs of men lie in wait for them in back streets, and beat them and kick them because they are working to maintain their wives and children.

There are reports of numerous other cases. One of these almost excels in brutality the story of Sullivan. It is the story of a lad of 18, who, like Sullivan, was at Tilbury in search of work. Miss Borthwick, who is zealous worker among the poor in the east end, was the witness of a cruel attack on this lad by a number of hulking men.

"He was crouching under the wheels of a cart," she said, "when I came on the scene. The cart was surrounded by a number of bullies, who were hurling imprecations at the boy.

"He was small, and appeared almost a child. He wore a look of abject terror. The men soon became tired of mere jeering. When one dragged him forward, others kicked him.

"The lad was a deplorable sight

when they had finished with him.

He was covered with blood, and one of his ears was half torn off.

"There were police at the end of the road, but this did not seem to worry them in the slightest.

"In the east end," added Miss Borthwick, "I came across a carpenter lying senseless in the road. I learned that he had been stricken down by one of these roving bands-although he had nothing whatever to do with the strike."

AGREE TO MEET Chamber of Commerce and Labor Committees to Confer

The industrial welfare committee of the Chamber of Commerce, of Cleveland, O., a standing committee of the body, has been authorized to meet with a committee of ten of the Cleveland Federation of Labor with a view to discussing what is in the mind of the labor organization as to the establishment of better industrial relations between employer and employe in Cleveland. The Chamber has entered the inquiry in a conservative way and declines to treat it from a purely organized labor standpoint.

The movement originated with the federation which, on May 29, 1912, adopted a resolution, reading in part:

"Whereas there have been efforts made in the past for the purpose of bringing about a closer relationship between the employers who have shown

friendliness toward the organized workers, with the ultimate desire of educating those who refuse to recognize the good that will result to them by dealing fairly with the trade union workers.

"Resolved that a committee of ten be appointed to investigate this matter and ascertain just what can be accomplished in an effort to bring about a more harmonious relation between the two dominant factors in our present-day commercial life and report the results of said investigation."

The resolutions were forwarded to the Chamber and from that time until late in July nothing definite was done.

The Chamber at first rejected the overture as presented, writing:

"In substance your resolution proposes, (1) that our two bodies unite to bring about the education of those who refuse to recognize the good that will result to them by dealing fairly with trade union workers; and (2) to ascertain what can be accomplished to bring about a more harmonious relation between the two factors in our present-day commercial life, i. e., the employing class and the labor unions.

"We should not represent those we were elected to represent (the letter was signed by the president and secretary of the Chamber) if we were led, upon the merits of a broad humanitarian policy, into an agreement to co-operate to bring about universal trade unionism as trade unionism exists today. We do not find, therefore, in the resolution of the Federation of Labor, a common basis for conference and co-operation.

"We should welcome a relationship between a committee representing so many of the workers in the industries of Cleveland as you represent, with a view to bringing about a better understanding of just requirements of industry, an understanding that should contemplate the cessation of unjust dealings by either party and the formation of a sound public opinion. with this understanding, your committee is willing to meet with us, we should like to arrange for the appointment of a committee to meet with you.”

If,

To this the federation committee replied that the Chamber had misinterpreted its resolution and that the purpose of the federation coincided with the views of the Chamber. The Chamber officials, July 16, answered this, saying:

"With a view to avoiding a lengthy correspondence simply to clear up difficulties in construction, the directors have asked our standing committee on industrial welfare to meet with your committee for the purpose of ascertaining your views as to the interpretation of the resolution of the Federation of Labor and to secure the views of your committee along the lines you have suggested."

Railroad Presidents To Senate

Petition National Upper House, Saying that
Anti-Injunction Bill is an Invitation to Violence

Twelve railroad presidents and a co-receiver of a thirteenth railroad joined in Chicago, July 3, in a communication to the United States senate to the effect that if the anti-injunction bill becomes a law, the railroads cannot be operated in times of strikes and that the law will be a notification to all the turbulent elements of society that at such times acts of depredation and violence can safely be committed. The communication reads:

This memorial is respectfully presented for your consideration by the undersigned representing common carriers engaged in interstate commerce.

Our purpose is to bring to your attention certain objections to the passage of a bill now before your honorable body for legislative consideration, popularly known and referred to as the Anti-Injunction Bill. The legal questions which this bill raises have been fully and, we believe, ably presented by the various counsel who have appeared before your committee, and it is not our purpose to burden your attention with further argument. In our opinion, however, some statement should be made directly by those who are personally charged with the responsibility of conducting the transportation of the commerce of this country.

With full deliberation, and upon the responsibility of our individual and personal word, we desire to assure your honorable body that in the event of strikes it will be impossible to so operate our railroads as to perform our duty to the public if this bill becomes a law. The merit of such controversies as many arise between the carriers and their employes is entirely foreign to the issue raised by the effort to enact this bill into law. What

ever may be the individual opinion as to these controversies, or whatever may be the personal sympathy with either party to them, the fact remains that such a law as this is notice to all turbulent elements of society that acts of depredation or violence may be committed with impunity and without fear or interference.

The owners of a factory can, in the event of a strike, measurably protect their property from depredation, since it is compact and capable of being adequately policed. The property. of the railroad on the contrary is exposed along its entire length and practically cannot be protected by the officers of the law.

It is well known that strikes usually, and railroad strikes always, depend for success on interference with the operation of the business against which the strike is brought, and it is equally well known that the interference, while generally resulting in violence and often in bloodshed, or even murder, may be of a character not easily reached by the slow process of law. In case of a threatened strike, what can be more proper or more conducive to the ends of justice than a court order enjoining interference with the business of a common carrier? Should there not in fact be a perpetual injunction in force all the time against interference with the transportation so essential to the welfare of the country? The proposed bill does not ostensibly forbid injunction, but its practical effect is the same-the prescribed methods of procedure are purposely contrived to prevent injunctions in time to be of any use, besides practically providing for immunity for disobeving them when issued.

If there is to be taken away from

the carriers the protecting arm of the courts the only means by which any effort can be made to operate a railroad during a strike is destroyed. Without that protection the carriers. are helpless.

The law imposes upon the carriers the duty to operate. Common fairness should extend to the public servant engaged in that public duty the protection of the courts from interference through unlawful acts of violence.

We respectfully submit that it is neither fair nor just to impose by statute a duty which must be performed, and then take away the only protection under which that duty can be discharged.

The violence and disorder which the passage of this bill invites would place the railways of this country at the mercy of the mob. We are unable to understand how any man who does not want to commit violence could be

interested in its passage. Have we not a right to look to the senate to stand between the great American shipping public and such an era of industrial disorder and commercial paralysis as the passage of this bill would foster, in every dispute between. the carriers and their employes?

We beg to assure you that nothing but the extreme gravity of the situation spurs us to this unusual course of direct appeal. We feel that we should be derelict in our duty to the public as well as to the owners of the properties we represent should we fail to point out the vicious character of the proposed legislation. It is invitation to riot; it is promised immunity. for crime.

The communication was signed by: D. Miller, president Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.; C. H. Markham, president Illinois Central Railroad Co.; A. J. Earling, president Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.; S. M. Felton, president Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.; B. A. Worthington, president Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.; E. P. Ripley, president Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway System; W. A. Gardner, president Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.; H. U. Mudge, president Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Rail

way Co.; B. L. Winchell, president St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co.; F. A. Delano, co-receiver Wabash Railroad Co.; H. G. Hetzler, president Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Co.; A. F. Banks, president Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co., and W. H. Canniff, president New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co.

In a separate communication, dated at New York, July 9, 1912, and also addressed to the senate, the following railroad presidents said that they had seen the communication and are in entire accord with the sentiments therein expressed: Howard Elliott, president Northern Pacific Railway; C. R. Gray, president Great Northern Railway; Newman Erb, president Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad; B. F. Bush, president Missouri Pacific Railway and Denver & Rio Grande R. R.; E. T. Jeffery, president Western Pacific Railway; C. E. Schaff, president Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway; Thos. J. Freeman, president International & Great Northern Railroad; Milton H. Smith, president Louisville & Nashville Railroad; W. W. Finley, president Southern Railway; T. M. Emerson, president Atlantic Coast Line Railroad; N. S. Meldrum, president Seaboard Air Line Railway; George W. Stevens, president Chesapeake & Ohio Railway; James McCrea, president Pennsylvania Railroad; W. C. Brown, president New York Central Lines; Daniel Willard, president Baltimore & Ohio Railroad; George F. Baer, president Philadelphia & Reading Railway and Central Railroad of New Jersey; Frederick D. Underwood, president Erie railroad; William H. Truesdale, president Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad; E. B. Thomas, president Lehigh Valley Railroad; Thomas P. Fowler, president. New York, Ontario & Western R. R.: Alexander Robertson, president Western Maryland Ry.; T. P. Shonts, president Toledo, St. Louis & Western R. R.; Jos. Ramsey, Jr., president Ann Arbor R. R.; Fairfax Harrison, president Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Ry.; Ralph Peters, president Long Island Railroad; Charles S. Mellen, president New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R.

DARROW TRIAL

Lincoln Steffens Testified He Tried to Save McNamara

The trial at Los Angeles, Cal., of Clarence Darrow, for an alleged attempt at bribing a juror in the McNamara trial, continued through July, Darrow taking the stand toward the end of the month in his own behalf. There was some talk that there might be a mistrial owing to the illness of a juror, who was twice ill with appendicitis, but this juror was replaced by another juror and the trial proceeded.

Dora M. Bain, wife of Robert F. Bain, a juror in the McNamara case, testified that Bert H. Franklin, former detective for the McNamara defense, called at her home and told her that if her husband would agree to sit in the McNamara panel, he would give him $500 at once and $3,500 more if he voted for acquittal.

Under cross-examination by Rogers, Mrs. Bain said Franklin had been openly to the house on several occasions and had given his card to a neighbor to be given to Mrs. Bain when the latter returned home.

"Franklin told me he had a chance to feather his own nest," said the witness, "and take life easy."

She said when Franklin first told her about the advance payment it did not strike her as being a bribe, but merely "easy money".

She said since then she had had many occasions to reflect upon her conduct.

"My husband showed me it was a crime, but I kept on coaxing," said she, almost in tears.

She explained she never thought her husband would qualify and that they could keep the $400 to help pay on their mortgage. She said she made one $100 payment on the house and later gave $300 to the district attorney.

Juror Bain himself testified that Detective Bert Franklin had told him that Darrow had furnished him with $20,000, to be used in "reaching" jur

ors.

"Franklin told me I was getting old

and had but little laid up," said the witness. "He told me both sides had done dirty work in hiring witnesses and 'getting' jurymen. When he gave me the $400, he said others were in the same boat. After Franklin left, I gave the money to my wife and told her never to mention it to me again. The money was in $20 bills."

The witness also said that Franklin cautioned him about freely spending money. He told him to run up bills and wait for a time so he could get some fees for jury service. He said

the detective told him he would be put through a stiff examination as to his qualifications to sit on the panel and that Darrow would probably ask the questions.

The prosecution offered in evidence testimony by a bank teller that Darrow gave Lecompte Davis a $10,000 check, which was cashed and the proceeds used as bail for Bert H. Franklin, the McNamara detective. This angered Attorney Appel, for Darrow, to such an extent that the court finally fined him $25 for contempt of court.

At another stage of the trial the court fined Assistant District Attorney Ford and Attorney Rogers for the defense for contempt of court; Rogers $10, and Ford $25. The two attorneys insisted on talking at the same time. Later both fines were remitted.

Lincoln Steffens, the writer, who has been credited by some with having effected the settlement by which the McNamara brothers pleaded guilty, testified in Darrow's behalf to the effect that Darrow and the McNamaras had consented to the plan before the arrest of Detective Bert H. Franklin for the alleged attempt to bribe Juror Lockwood. Steffens testified that it was then agreed to continue negotiations with a view to saving the elder McNamara brother, if possible, and that to this end Attorney Lecompte Davis was sent to the district attorney's office to keep up the "bluff" by issuing an ultimatum that there would be no settlement if John J. McNamara had to plead guilty. This testimony was directed to showing what the defense will try to prove as its strongest card; namely that Darrow had agreed

« ForrigeFortsett »