Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-09-09
THE MINERS CONVENTION.
Sentiment Apparently Against Ac-
ceptnnce of Strike Settlement.

| COLUMBUS, o., September S.-The In
terstate miners convention adjourned
this evening until tomorrow morning,
J without having taken vote on the ques-
| ton OF accepting the proposed settle
| ment OF the strike. The prospects for
| acceptance are somewhat doubtful: In
| fact, canvass of the situation shows
| that majority Of the votes, unless some
| change should be brought about. will be
| cast against It, The greater part of the
| afternoon session OF the convention 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 Pennsylvania. All OF these officials
with the exception OF Mr.. Carson argued
in favor of the acceptance OF the Pitts
burg operators proposition. They told
the delegates very plainly that IL the
proposition was rejected. the strike would
fail utterly. The contest could not be
continued as all resources had been ex-
hausted. They advised that inasmuch as
the strike had been precipirated in the
Pittsburg district, II was very proper
that IL should be settled there.
President Carson. of Illinois, told the
delegates just as plainly why he could
not support the proposition for n settle
ment. He said that his men were practi-
cally ignored by 1t. The operators OF his
State had notified him that they would
not abide by any settlement made with
the Pfttsburg operators. Should the Pitts
burg and Ohio and Indiana miners re-
sumo operations the Illinois operators
would be compelled TO open their mines,
also. and the only recourse the miners
Of the State would have would be a local
strike for which they were unprepared.
The best they could do would be TO accept
the operators terms. and that would |
eventually force Il reduction again In the |
other States.
The most important action of the con- |
ventfon to-day was In determining the |
basis or representation. Some OF the dele |
gates wished that no delegate should be |
allowed to cast more than six votes. This, |
If adopted. 10 Is claimed. would have set |
tied the question Of the acceptance OF the |
strike settlement very quickly. II was |
the sentiment OF the conception, however
that representation should be fixel so that |
all miners should have voice I'm the set
tlement. Accordingly IT was decided that |
one vote should be cast for every 100
miners represented. This makes the votes /
to be cast by each State about az fol-
lows: Western Pennsylvania 30: Ohio.
2sO; West Virginia, 10; Indiana, 60; Illi-
nois. 200.
The Illinois vote. which will be cast
against the acceptance OF the operators
will about Offset the vote OF
Western Pennsylvania (the Pittsburg
DISTRICT. The vote of Ohio Is about
equally divided on the proposition; also
the West Virginia vote. This practically
leaves the balance Of power in the hands
OF the Indiana delegates. Should they
vote with Illinois, which some OF the
delegates say they have instructions TO
do. by inference. IL not by direct Ian
guage, the proposed settlement will un-
ioubtedly be defeated
1t developed tonight that the vote OF
the Pttsburg District will not be In favor
OF accepting the settlement, as some OF
the delegates have stated openly they
would not vote for II. The leaders of the
miners are doing some quiet missionary
work tonight. and have hopes that they
will be able 10 turn the tide. Tomorrow. |
the members OF the National Executive
Board will be heard by the convention,
and as they all strongly endorse the set
tlement proposition. their views may have
considerable weight with the delegates.