The Sailors' Union Fights Back Against the Waterfront Crimps

The controversy set out in yesterday's Post-Intelligencer, in which non-union sailors' boarding-house men made charges against the Sailors' Union, has called forth a vigorous reply from Paddy Glynn, secretary of the Seattle branch of the Sailors' Union. Mr. Glynn gives the union's side of the dispute. The Post-Intelligencer notes that its article simply reported statements by Thomas W. Wright and Thomas J. Newman, and did not take sides. Mr. Glynn's letter follows: 'SAILORS' UNION OF THE PACIFIC, Seattle, May 14, 1895. To the Editor: The writer, as secretary of the Seattle branch of the Sailors' Union, calls attention to matter in yesterday's Post-Intelligencer. The statements it contains are too gross a stigma on the institution represented by the writer to be left unnoticed. There are those who do not appreciate the condition of the sailors' cause, as you term it, and we would therefore state our side of it and put a clearer light on the whole matter. The story as you publish it emanated from Thomas W. Wright and Thomas J. Newman, sailors' boarding-house men or crimps, as they are popularly named. These two gentlemen have never before appeared in print as suffering angels as they did in your columns yesterday, and it is hard for us to realize by what strange freak their story was allowed to pass as truth. These two are well-known characters on this coast—bad characters is a mild term for them. Briefly, Thomas W. Wright is of Nova Scotia, and until a few months ago was a partner of the notorious Jim Turk, the shanghaier and crimp of Portland. Wright was an active partner of Jim Turk in his criminal ventures among sailors, the details of which are told by mariners in all ports of the known marine world, from Melbourne to Antwerp. It is no exaggeration to say that Jim Turk's trade was vicious. It does not give a vivid idea of the cold-blooded villainy of the man who trafficked in sailors' flesh, drugging them and turning them over to the ships with which he dealt. Recently Wright has been in partnership with Turk's son in Tacoma, still in the same nefarious business of boarding houses and crimping. There is money in the business, and he stays with it. The proposition is plain. A captain of a merchantman wants two sailors at, say, $20 a month. He cannot get them from the union under, say, $35. The union has a moral influence over all sailors ashore, and they do not go voluntarily for less than union wages. Here is where the crimp finds his opportunity. The unfortunate sailor has been living ashore, and he is presented before the crimp, but, not likely having the money, he is given the only option as a settlement—serve aboard the ship, and the captain pays over to the crimp part of the man's wages. This is crimping proper. Wright, however, does not stop at this. He shanghais in the old crude way, and with whisky and drugs and whatever his cunning and bulldozing character supplies him with, houses them. There is no danger in it for him. The law finds it hard to reach him and the pay is heavy. This is how he makes the money of which he makes mention in your article. It sounds more like fiction, but it is too ghastly real to be doubted without investigation, and we are sincere in what we write. Cases in point against Wright are numerous. As late as last January Wright shanghaied two ignorant Japanese sailors aboard the American ship Pajbco. We have office records to prove this statement. This last March Wright, with the help of others, shipped a mixed crew aboard a vessel when they were entitled to a discharge, and the money was paid over to the crimps in the form of the men who were shipped by them. We think it is dangerous to print such matter in regard to serious questions without a full knowledge of the inner workings of such questions. Such matter reflects in an unholy way on a work that has been the ideal of sailors over the whole world for close on to a century—the Sailors' Union and Home. In the years since its establishment it was the appeal of the press. Will the press now turn against it through the voice of its enemies, the crimps? The voice of two notorious crimps spoke through your columns yesterday, but we are honest men, and the prayer we offer every day for the success of our enterprise comes from honest hearts, the hearts of the men of the ocean. Our fight is for the emancipation of the sailor from the demoralized condition and influences that surround them, and in which they have been steeped so long. Ours is a noble purpose. We fight for social order among them; we fight for fair wages. These are our simple mottos. The Seattle Sailors' Union may have to call on public sympathy before long, and it thinks it will succeed. We have had in contemplation for some time the establishment of a substantial home for sailors, in emulation of those in San Francisco and elsewhere. Such a building as we desire would be an ornament to this city and a factor in Seattle's business which would make it envied. It would mean a power in centering the shipping business of the Northwest at this point. Praying that this letter will gain that sympathy, I beg to remain, PATRICK GLYNN, Secretary Sailors' Union, Seattle.' Another communication on the subject read as follows: 'Seattle, May 14, 1895. To the Editor: I read from your paper of the strike of the sailors. You put it too strong. You ought not to be more on one side than the other. There are always two sides to a story, and always will be so long as the people—and especially seamen—do not get their rights; that is fair price for fair labor. The facts are these, as far as I can make out, for I have been following the sea for twelve years on the Pacific Ocean and I think I have got to the bottom of the facts. The shipowners do not want to pay any more than they really can help, for this reason: there is so much opposition in their line that they do not make enough to entertain their friends—merchants—on champagne and 25-cent cigars, and they commenced on their employees by lowering wages so low that they cannot make enough to live fair and dress decent, and if the sailor had a family, he could not bring them up without going without clothing. There are some that I could show if they would be willing to come forward to testify to what I have written, but for the pride of American. I am respectfully yours, W. K. WHITE.'