The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-02-12


interstate commerce. John l.. Lee, an em-
ploye of the Reading Railroad Company up
to the time of the present troubles, and who
was Chairman of the Executive Board of
the Knights of Labor for the Reading sys-
TEN, was the first witness examined. In
answer to questions Mr.. Lee said that he
did not consider that there was any strike
on the Reading railroad. 1t was lockout
on the part of the General Superintendent
of the Reading road.
BEGINNING OF THE TROUBLE.
Five crews. he said, refused to move cars
at Port Richmond and General Superin-
tendent Sweigert discharged them without
giving them hearing. There was an agree
ment that no man should be discharged, ex
cept after fair hearing. When the Super
intendent refused to reiuState the men,
pending a hearing, a general going out
followed. Subsequently meeting was
held in Pottsville and it was
resolved that settlement should be effected.
The witness and others Immediately went
to Philadelphia, and on Dec. 26 they
called on Superintendent Sweigert and told
him that they were willing to resume work
according to the order issued by General
Manager Mcleod, stating that all the em-
pIoyes who did not report for duty on the
morning of the 9th would be dismissed
from the company's service.
swEIGERT's STAGGERING.
Supt. Sweigert said: "The order be -.
Your committee would not come and see
us only you know you are whipped. | have
out-generaed you. Had the power at my
back that you people have ! could go into
this fight and win but the Knights of Labor
leaders have no brains. They are --
towards, and they are afraid to
Gcr,t Tho uif told SyK,airrart
that they came to prevent the strike
from going any further and asked what
were his terms. Supt. Sweigert said:
"Well, l want the five crews discharged,
never to work any more for this company.
l further want the discharge of the Master
Workman of District Assembly No. 62S5,
and of Bernard Sharkey.n
The witness told him the terms were
pretty hard but that it was better for the
knights tosupport the discharged men than
to have the strike continue They then
agreed to declare the strike off and the wit
ness went to the Philadelphia Ledger and
Press offices to give notice that the strike
was off.
NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT.
There was no written agreement. Supt.
Sweigert was asked to put the agreement
in writing but be refused, and wanted to
know if they questioned his yeracity. The
next day Supt. Sweigert failed to live up to
his agreement and discharged representa-
tive men all along the line. The men went
out, as there was nothing else to do.
Supp. Swegert, when we saw
him and asked if be did
not intend to live up to his agreement of the
preceding night said that he had changed his
mind. Mr.. Lee also said that the kilograms
sent to the men ordering them back to
work had been withheld and that he be-
lieved the reason was that the railroad COM
pany wanted an excuse to refuse employ
ment to certain of the mon it had agreed to
take back. The result of Supt Sweigert's
refusal to carry out his arrangement was
the cause of the second strike or lockout.
WOULDN'T SERVE TWO MASTERS.
On cross-examination as to the witness
connection with the strike in the Lehigh
section, Mr.. Lee stated that he was then on
leave of absence from the Reading com
pany, and that Mr.. Sweigert, Superintend-
ent of the Reading company, had offered
to pay him for the period of his leave of
absence, but the witness had declined, say
ing that he was drawing 81 80 per
day from laboring men and could not
afford to take pay from the railroad.
What Supt. Sweigert wanted him to do was
not stated, but the superintendent said that
he made the offer because the witness had
done a great deal for the company. In re-
ply to another question the witness said that
William F. Lewis, of Columbus, o., in
charge of District No. 1876, miners organ
izatlon. could give positive evidence that
there had existed for some time combina-
tion between powerful railroad corporations
having headquarters in New York to break
up the organization of the Knights of Labor
Hugh McGarvey, Of the Lehigh region,
took the stand and testified that he had
been miner nearly all his life, but for two
or three years past had been engaged in
other business. He was familiar with the
Lehigh mining business so far as it con-
cerned the wor1men but was not familiar
with the operators branch of the business
INTHE LEHIGH REGION.
About 5000 persons, or one-half of all
those engaged in the mining business in the
Lehigh region. were employed by practi-
cally three concerns. The strike in that
region began in September. The trouble
was simply a continuation of the difficulties
existing since 1871. The immediate cause
of the strike was that, as the work
men claimed the basis of the
system of wages was too low.
The men wanted an advance of 10 per cent.
but the operators took no notice OF the de-
mand The miners would hardly average
$3.50 per annum as their earnings Perhaps
u
little money. Since the strike began many
of the Lehigh miners had found work in
other regions, but about 40 per cent. were
still idle He knew of none who were
actually starving, but there were many in
want Since September the labor organ
izations had distributed $1,000 or 81, 900
weekly among these people.
TAXES ON THE MINERS.
He said that the miners were valued by
the Assessor of Taxes at 500 and the labor
ers at S75. The companies deducted the
amount Of the taxes from the miners
wages, together with per cent. commission
for making the collections, and turned il
over TO the collector OF taxes. The tax
amounted 10 as much a. Is 30 for n miner.
Chairman Tillman believed that the wit
ness must be In error, saying: "That is four
times as high as have ever heard Of "A ne
gro being tnxed IN tho South, Ia the nature
Of poll tax, for this Is "A poll tax The
witlass said the Catholic minnra paid their
priests about bOc. a month apiece through
the company's Office.
MINERS pEMAND AR ADVANCE
scRAsTos. Pa, FEB. LIZA formal de-