In 1931 a strike started in a factory over the dismissal of a number of workers. The workers were divided and about one-third refused to strike. The strikers, with the help of hundreds of other workers, picketed the factory. After about two weeks we were served with an interdict, the firm being the applicant, the Garment Workers' Union, Mr. G. Malan, an organiser of the union, and myself the respondents. This was the first time in the history of the labour movement of South Africa that an injunction had been applied for in industrial disputes. The employer obtained a temporary interdict restraining us from "molesting or interfering with the employees of the factory". During the strike we held regular meetings outside the factory in the lunch hour and after work each day; the day the interdict was served a squad of policemen and an inspector stood waiting outside the factory, presumably to arrest us for refusing to abide by the court order. At 5.30 p.m. I mounted a little platform in the usual way and, as the inspector approached, I addressed him and the crowd which the presence of the police had attracted. I read the terms of the temporary interdict and assured the inspector that we had no intention of molesting or interfering with the employees of the factory and, indeed, would never engage in such practices. I took the trouble to explain that there had been no need for the firm to apply for an interdict, as molesting and interfering with scabs was a criminal offence under the law. The inspector, who seemed quite human, appeared nonplussed and took no action. I then went on to say how energetic the police were in protecting the property and rights of the employers but how they never took action to enforce the law when their employers were illegally underpaying hundreds of exploited workers. After denouncing the practices of sweating, I continued with a lecture on class justice and ended by saying that there was no justice in South Africa. I made a passing reference to the conviction of a union leader on a frame-up a month previously and hinted that the police were not descendants of George Washington.
Six weeks later I received a summons to answer a charge of contempt of court for attacking South African justice. In the meantime, the employer's application for the interdict was argued in the Supreme Court and Judge de Waal gave judgment against us. However, as there was a dispute on the facts of the case, the matter was sent for trial. A few days before the trial was to begin, the employers' association approached the union, asking us to drop the action; each side to pay its own costs. We knew that the employers had no case and told them that, since a member of their association had started the action, he could withdraw it, but he would have to pay all the costs. At first they refused, but the day before the case was due to be heard the firm withdrew the application and paid all the costs.
I was now due to appear in the Magistrate's Court, JohannesÂburg, on the charge of contempt of court. Johannesburg magistrates usually accept the word of a policeman rather than that of a trade union official and I knew that, on evidence, I must be convicted. I decided to take two exceptions to the charge: firstly, that the charge of contempt of court must be tried by a Superior Court and not by a Magistrate's Court, which is a creation of statute; secondly, that the charge disclosed no offence. I quoted numerous South African and English cases in support of both exceptions.
Mr. van Schoor, the magistrate, seemed to pay little attention to my legal arguments. He adjourned the proceedings and, the following day, when the court resumed, he informed me that he had consulted some of his fellow-magistrates and that although they agreed my submission had some grounds he had decided to proceed with the case. I knew at once that the matter would have to go to appeal.
The chief witness for the prosecution was Detective- Sergeant Toerien, an Afrikaner who spoke slowly in halting English. He knew no shorthand and admitted in his evidence that I had spoken rapidly for about half an hour, yet he gave the court a verbatim port of my speech. The magistrate accepted his story and I was found guilty.
As soon as the verdict had been announced, Mr. van Schoor, who had been most amiable throughout the proceedings, changed his demeanour entirely. He began by delivering himself of a family which ended in his telling me that, if I did not like the justice of South Africa, I could go elsewhere. Then, he asked me the extraordinary question: "Sachs, did I give you a fair trial?" was not prepared to answer this question in the affirmative and, had I answered truthfully, I should have been guilty of contempt of court. I therefore declined to reply. He repeated the question angrily, and then I told him that, as I was the accused, it was not for me to say whether my trial had been fairly conducted or not. This apparently made him all the angrier. He then asked Toerien if I had been convicted previously. I had been convicted twice in the Magistrate's Court, but had appealed in each case, and both convictions had been set aside. Toerien produced evidence of these convictions in court. I protested strongly and told Mr. van Schoor that both my successful appeals were recorded in the Law sports and he could verify this for himself. I said that, as the Court had it expressed the view that there were interesting legal points involved, it was my intention to appeal. This annoyed Mr. van Schoor intensely and he warned me that, if I were not careful, should be committed for contempt of court. He fixed bail at £25. It was late in the afternoon and I had only £20 on me, so the detectives took my fingerprints and rushed me off to prison. At about eleven p.m., when I was already asleep, there was a knock on the door of my cell and I was released. My friends had obtained the warrant for my release.
In due course my appeal was heard in the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court. It was upheld and my conviction and sentence set aside.
At about the same time, I became involved in two more court actions.
In one of the tailoring shops, where the employer professed to be progressive, the workers came out on strike. To discredit the union and its general secretary, the employer hired the services of two extremely able and unscrupulous men, who had been running a low type of weekly paper called "L.S.D." Suddenly, their rag came out with posters and banner headlines, "exposing" E. S. Sachs. They accused me of "dancing all night with skokiaan-reeking Zulu queens", and many other disgraceful acts. I have never danced in my life and this was nothing but a crude attempt to exploit race hatred and discredit the free trade union movement and me. One of the editors of the paper told me that he had been promised £25 for the "job", but that the employer was a "scoundrel" and had paid him only £5.
I was not afraid of blackmail and I sent an affidavit to the Attorney General, requesting that the editors be prosecuted for criminal libel. Both were convicted on seven counts of criminal libel and also on five counts of public indecency. One was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment and the other to six months, and their paper was closed down. Many businessmen thanked me and were deeply grateful that I had rid Johannesburg of a pest.
After the strike of 1931, most of the employers began to show hostility to the union and did all in then- power to weaken the union and to hinder the officials in their work. During one of my routine visits to factories, I was chatting to a group of about a hundred garment workers when the employer, who had formerly been friendly, became abusive. His brother, another director of the firm rushed in, shouting: "What did the 'L.S.D.' say about you? If the girls knew what the 'L.S.D.' said about you, you would not be secretary for long"! I told the gentleman that he would regret this slander and left the factory.
As a trade union leader, I have always fought vigorously, often ruthlessly and perhaps crudely, for the cause of the workers who had elected me and whose misery I felt keenly; but I never indulged in personal abuse. The two brothers had, up to this time, utterly condemned the filthy attacks upon me in the "L.S.D.", but now that relations in the industry had become disturbed, they readily drew on the slander published by that paper.
I issued a summons for defamation and the case was set down for hearing in the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court. Before the case opened, my counsel asked me whether I would be prepared to accept a settlement. I told him that I had no wish to proceed with the action, as the employer had been quite reasonable before this trouble started, and that I would be prepared to waive the claim for damages and agree to each party's paying its own costs. I wanted no formal apology, but merely that the employer should go to his workers and, in his own words, retract the statement. But it appeared the employers' association had now taken a hand in the matter and urged the employer not to settle the case, hoping that if I lost, the damage to my reputation would deal a serious blow to Trade Unionism.
The proceedings lasted eight days and, under cross-examination, the employer showed up very poorly. I was awarded £75 damages and costs, which amounted to over £2,000. I was never happy about this case and it was only the obstinacy of the employers' association and the stupidity of the defendant that forced the issue.