The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1897-09-09
CONVENTION
Differing Opinions Regarding the
Pittsburg Compromise.
THE ILLINOIS DELEGATES OBJECT

President Carson, of That State, De-
ciares the Miners in His state Are
Practically Ignored by the Proposed
Compromise Agreement.
Columbus. o., Sept. 9.-The inter-
state miners convention adjourned last
evening until today without having
taken a vote on the question of accept
ing or rejecting the proposed settle-
ment of the strike.
The prospects for the acceptance OF
the settlement are somewhat doubtful.
In fact, canvass of the situation
shows that a majority Of the votes, un-
less some change should be brought
about, will be cast against It. The
greater part Of the afternoon session
was secret the delegates listening to
speeches from National President
Ratchford and State Presidents Farms
of Ohio, Knight of Indiana, Carson of
Illinois and Dolan of Pittsburg. All Of
these officials with the exception OF
Mr.. Carson, argued in favor of the ac-
ceptance Of the Pittsburg operators
proposition. They told the delegates
very plainly that If the proposition was
rejected the strike would fail utterly;
LAAtil AAAG IbAAGSA Nbul4 AAuL bN tuAAAiluGhf
as all resources had been exhausted.
They advised that, inasmuch as the
strike had been preclpitated in the
Pittsburg district it was very proper
that It should be settled there.
President Carson, of Illinois, told the
delegates just as plainly why he could
not support the proposition for q set
tlement. He said the Illinois miners
were practically ignored by it. The
operators of his state had notified him
that they would not abide by any set
tlement made with the Pittsburg oper-
ators In many OF the Illinois districts,
moreover, the miners had signed iron
Gland contracts which ran until next
May. Should the Pittsburg and Ohio
and Indiana miners resume operations
the Illinois operators would be com
PEELED to open their mines also, and the
only recourse the miners of the state
would have would be local strike, for
which they are unprepared. The best
they could do would be to accept the
operators terms, and that would
eventually force a reduction again in
the other states.
The most important action yesterday
was in determining the basis of repre-
sentation. Some of the delegates want
ed a rule that no delegate should be
allowed to cast more than six votes.
This, If adopted, it is claimed, would
have settled the question of the ac-
ceptance Of the strike settlement very
quickly. 1t was the sentiment of the
convention that representation should
be fixed so that all miners should have
a voice in the settlement. Accordingly
it was decided that one vote should be
cast for every 100 miners represented
| This makes the vots to be cast each
state about as follows: Western Penn
sylvania, 2SO Ohio, 2SO; West Virginia,
11O; Indiana, 60; Illinois, 200
The Illinois vote, which will be cast
against the acceptance of the oper-
ators' proposition, will about offset the
vote Of western Pennsylvania pitts
burg district The vote of Ohio is
about equally divided on the propo-
| sition, and also the West Virginia vote.
| This practically leaves the balance of
power in the hands of the Indiana
delegates. Should they vote with Illi
nois, which some delegates say they
have instruction to do, by inference, If
not by direct language, the proposed
settlement will undoubtedly be defeat
ed. The Indiana delegates say they
are instructed not to vote in favor of
the operators proposition until gen.
eral settlement will be effected by it.
In view Of the position Of the Illinois
miners they do not see their way clear
to vote to accept the proposition. 1t
| develops that the vote of the Pittsburg
| district win not be unanimous in favor
| of accepting the settlement, as some
of the delegates have stated openly
they would not vote for it.
The convention is one of the largest
delegate gatherings the miners have
ever had there being $50 delegates on
the ground, and more are expected.