American Steel & Wire Co. v. Wire Drawers' & Die Makers' Unions Nos. 1 and 3

• Decision Date: 18 October 1898
• Docket Number: 5,812.
• Citation: 90 F. 608
• Parties: AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. v. WIRE Drawers' & DIE MAKERS' UNIONS NOS. 1 AND 3 et al. [1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

90 F. 608

AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. v. WIRE Drawers' & DIE MAKERS' UNIONS NOS. 1 AND 3 et al. ^[1]

No. 5,812.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

October 18, 1898

The proof in this case establishes that the former operatives of the plaintiff's mill have organized a strike to secure an advance of wages to a scale that they have endeavored to induce the plaintiff to accept before they will work for it. The strike has been conducted under the leadership of Walter Gillette and others, made parties to the bill. He was not one of the striking operatives, but a member of one of the unions, and an official of the executive council of the federation to which the unions belong. He instigated the movement, and substantially organized it.

It is not necessary to consider the causes for the strike, its scope or object, for it must be conceded that the men had a right to strike, no matter for what cause, good or bad; nor to consider whether it was a wise or judicious movement or not. That matter does not concern the proceedings before the court, but only the men themselves, and therefore all the affidavits upon that subject are quite irrelevant. The striking operatives had no fixed contract for their labor nor did those who remained, nor did those who desired to enter the mill to work for the plaintiff, have such contracts. All were working, or proposed to work, for daily or weekly wages, and might quit or work at will, and might be so discharged. The two Wire Drawers' Unions made defendants are not shown to have been otherwise engaged than by lending their sanction and co-operation to the larger movement, embracing many operatives who were not members of the union. The plan adopted was to organize for the movement the whole body of wire drawers employed in the mill, unionists and nonunionists, by assembling them in mass meeting. The strike having been set on foot by such a meeting, it was continued by holding almost daily a mass meeting at a certain hall near by, which meetings have continued from the beginning of the strike, about the 1st of August last, until the present time. The proof does not disclose with any detail the organized plan of campaign adopted by these meetings, but it does appear the Gillette and the other leaders, one or more, were always on hand, as leaders, if occasion required; and the important feature of their plan was to patrol or picket the plaintiff's mill, not at any time by going on the premises, but around and near to them, and especially on all the streets and other approaches to them, more or less remote, but always near enough to intercept all wire drawers going to the mill to engage in work; and this picket or patrol was kept up day and nigh, continuously, but not always to the same extent, either as to their location, the number on duty, or the vigilance employed. The plaintiffs contend and their affidavits tend to prove it, that the purpose of this patrol was to forcibly prevent, if force were necessary all persons willing to go to work in the mill from entering it for that purpose; while the defendants contend, and their affidavits tend to prove it, that the only purpose was to meet these men, and 'by argument and persuasion induce them not to take the strikers' jobs, but to join the strikers, by abstention from work, at least, until all could go to work on the advanced scale proposed by the strikers. ' Mostly, the affidavits only express the opinions of the affiants that the conduct complained of by the plaintiff's affidavits amounted only to 'argument' or 'persuasion.' They do establish, undoubtedly, that the strikers did intend to use peaceful argument in furtherance of their desire to prevent the outsiders from going to work in the mill; and they deny that any violence was used, except such as was provoked by aggressive action on the part of the 'strike breakers,' -- words which will be borrowed from the mouths of the defendants and their counsel, and used here to designate all who insisted on going into the mill to work. And it is the belief of the defending affiants that this aggression by the strike breakers was instigated and organized by the plaintiff for the purpose of breaking the strike by violence, or to bring about a condition which would justify this application for an injunction, and that it was the preliminary fabrication of evidence to that end. It is not denied that conflict, turbulence, and violence have occurred on several occasions in the streets near the mill, especially on August 28th, September 5th, 12th, 19th, 20th, and 21st, and October 5th and 6th; but the affiants for defendants swear that in every instance this was provoked by the strike breakers, and not brought on by the strikers. The affidavits of the plaintiff put the blame on the strikers. The most formidable of these conflicts was that of September 19th, which had some special features, but otherwise may be taken as in some degree representing the others, so far, at least, as it indicates the defendants' plan for maintaining their strike, and confessedly is the one wherein the aggression of the plaintiff's strike breakers most decidedly appears, and most opprobriously, in the view of the defendants and their counsel.

There is in the city of Cleveland a settlement of Poles, called the 'Polack Settlement,' wherein resides a Catholic priest, now out of harmony with his former church, said by defendants to have been excommunicated; but this is denied by him. There also resides there one Paulowski, seemingly a very determined and belligerent person. The priest has an independent congregation of his own, and it is testified that about 40 of them are wire drawers formerly employed in the plaintiff's mill; there are also in the congregation or settlement other wire drawers,-- among them, Paulowski, -- who had worked for plaintiff, but were not so employed at the time or immediately before the strike. Paulowski is denounced by the defendants' affidavits and by their counsel as a 'professional strike breaker'; that is, one who for hire will head a gang of men proposing to work, and lead them in assaults upon the strikers to clear the way to the factories, or a gage of 'toughs' pretending to want work,-- it being immaterial to this soldier of fortune, so he be paid for the enterprise. The proof does not substantiate this character for the man. He denies it, and swears that he really wished to go to work taking advantage of this opening, as did his neighbors and companions, who needed the wages to be earned. He made several other attempts to reach the mill, and with much smaller groups than were engaged in the events of the 19th of September. The Chief manager of the plaintiff company, some of the superintendents and foremen, visited this settlement, had conferences with the priest, Paulowski, and others, with the general result, not denied, that an arrangement was made whereby the priest advised his parishioners to avail themselves of the offered opportunity to go to work in this wire mill. Some 50 of them addressed a petition to the mayor, announcing the desire to go to work, asserting their need of the wages, and asking for police protection in reaching the mill against the anticipated obstruction of the streets by the strikers. The priest and others with him also called on the superintendent of police, showed him the petition and affidavits of assaults that had been made, and requested police protection. The superintendent told them that he got his orders from the mayor, and advised that he be seen. They presented the petition and affidavits to the mayor, who told them he would look the matter over, and see that the protection should be there. They then advised him that they would make an attempt to go to work on the following Monday, the 19th. On that morning about 15 of the Polacks, in company with Paulowski, attempted to go to the mill, but were met as they approached on the streets by a body of strikers, assembled by signals or preconcerted arrangement, variously estimated at 50, 70, and 100, or more. A fight ensued. There was only one policeman present, on the regular beat, though there is proof that three others were there in citizens' clothes, which is, however, denied, and the fact is not clearly established. The respective affidavits seek to blame the other side for beginning this combat. One of the strike breakers, who was an employee trying to go to his work, was arrested, but there was no other arrest. The strikers prevailed, and the Polacks did not reach the mill. Immediately after this disturbance one of the attorneys and the manager of the plaintiff's company called on the mayor, and again demanded police protection. They subsequently addressed to him a letter, advising him of the situation, and informed him that on the next day another attempt would be made by a body of men seeking employment, and again demanded proper police protection. To this the mayor made a somewhat diplomatic reply, denying that there was any occasion for police interference, suggesting that a meeting be had between the parties to adjust the difficulties, and expressing his belief that, if the plaintiff were willing to do 'the right thing,' the whole question might be easily settled. On the next day, September 21st, a similar body of men, under the leadership of Baackes, the general manager, and Ney, the superintendent, of plaintiff's mill, attempted to reach the mill, and were again obstructed by a large body of strikers, quite 200 strong, under one Russ, as their leader, whereupon 'a scuffle ensued,' and the strikers again succeeded in preventing the men from going to work. The plaintiff's affidavits complain of the perfunctory and inefficient action of the single policeman on his regular beat to help them through,...