OCR Interpretation

The day book. (Chicago, Ill.) 1911-1917, May 06, 1915, NOON EDITION, Image 10

Image and text provided by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045487/1915-05-06/ed-1/seq-10/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

flrfffli I
Once again the law has taken its
stand on the side of Big Business in
the injunction grantedby Judge Jesse
Baldwin against the"waitresses,
which injunction is so sweeping that
it covers 55 restaurant owners who
were never approached by the "wait
resses' union and who went into
court on a false affidavit stating they
knew they were threatened with'
picketing, etc.
Judge Baldwin in his opinion mak
ing permanent the. temporary injunc
tion originally granted' by him to
Knab, Power and Efting, and which
now includes, among others, the Del
co Lunch Co., a corporation that
bought out Knab & Efting and with
rwhom the waitresses have never even
;had an interview, laid stress xn the
.fact that "rush of cases and the fact,
that the waitresses had not filed a
brief at the close of tbe trial,' with a
transcript of all the evidence, had not,
given him sufficient time, But he beJ
lieved the complainants had made out
their case."
Commenting on the decision of
Baldwin, Miss Elizabeth Malpney of
the waitresses' union-said:
"No strike was declared and no
picketing done against more -than 504
restaurants included in ims" injunc
tion. I think it is the most unjust,
unfair decision ever made.
"In this case we have been in tBe
courts since May 9, almost a year.
The only thing we did was to ask the
moral assistance of the public to
standardize our trade, establish an
$8 wage and a 6-day week.
"The picketing and the fights in
the municipal and chancery courts
have cost us in the neighborhood of
$20,000, and when Judge Baldwin
further ruled that we must file a brief
and a transcript of all the testimony
we had been in court so much that
our finances were depleted and we
thought that request unfair and un
usual in view of the fact that Judge 1
Baldwin had heard all of the evidence
and had been familiar with the case
almost a year. We did not see
why this extraordinary imposition
should be put on us.
"The fight will still go on. We be
lieve the decision will be reversetlby
the higher courts on the evidence,."
"Is it your opinion that Judge
Baldwin was biased?" Miss Maloney
was asked.
"We applied for a change of venue
from Judge Baldwin," she answered,
"and he refused it on a technicality."
Victor A. Olander, sec'y of the
State Federation of Labor, declared
the injunction question is the most
serious one confronting the citizens
of Illinois.
"I believe men on the bench who
issues such 'injunctions are more dan-
jgerous 'to-the workers of the coni
.munity, to the liberties of the peo
ple and tojjoyernment by law than
any other individual in our commu
nity. - -
"The, kind of injunctions issued
against the waitresses "is of a nature
used only against working people,
never against" business men., As be
tween business, men- the injunction
Iprbcess is. used byjthe courts only to
-protect actual property or actual
property rights, never as a means to
enable one business man to Retain his
patronage and labor in competition
with other business men who, by
ffieir coming into the field and open
ing up new stores, etc., might take it
away from him.
"It is only when working people,
and in this case working girls, who
seek to raise the standard of living in
the cbmmunity, to make life better,
and who in the exercise of personal
rights that belong to them under the
law, do those things that result be
cause of the sympathy of the public
in loss of business to Borne particular
employer, the injunction judge as
sumes the powers of a king and in
the interest of the employer utilizes
the equity process as a strike break
er and justifies his positionby claim-
'giianm,:, M4tm'tVs i uirmWiMiiimmiwMi 1

xml | txt