The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-12-18
Individual Companies Tell Their
Side Of the Story.
THE LIvELIEsT SESSION YET
The Question as to Who Was Paying the
Lawyers Of the Non-UnIOn Men Brought
Out Sharp Debate.

uoversy yesterday before the strike con-
nission and the attorneys who are rey
resenting the non-union men who hav
been admitted to the arbitration schem
began calling witnesses
The sessions were probably the liveIies
get held In the morning the miners
lawyers challenged the fairness of Ger
tain wage statements handed to the com
mission by the Pennsylvania Coal com
pany. In the afternoon Lawyer Darroy
had a spirited discussion with Chairmal
Gray as to whether the miners had
right 10 know who is paying the lawyers
representing the non-union men .befor,
the commission.
Mr.. Darrow having asserted they wer,
employed by the coal operators. Preced
Ing this Simon II. Wolverton, counsel FOL
The Reading company. who delivered TN,
opening address on behalf OF all the large
coal companies. made the point that the
recognition Of the union In not an issue
before the commission. which brought a
protest from Mr.. Darrow. The latter
claimed that IL IL were not then the op-
erators should be forbidden from pre-
senting testimony that tended to show
the union was responsible for all the al
itEed violence committed during the
strike.
The discussion ended with Mr. Darrow
directly challenging the good faith of Mr..
Nay.
The miners here rested their case and
MI. Wolverton formally opened the oper-
ntors' side Of the controversy by reading
statement which represented the views
OF all the large coal companies.
IRA n. Burns, one of the attorneys for
tho Independent operators. presented the
opening statement OF the individual COM
paniex
The statement considers the questions
MnQer three general lheads-nrst. wages.
second. hours OF labor: third, non-union
man and discrimination.
The first. they believe. should be settled
ny each company with its individual en-
pioyes, the settlement TO be based upon
me conditions at each separate coiliery.
PROFIT AND LOSS. ~
OF the second, # says: The difference
between an eight-hour day and a 10-hour
nay 70 individual operator might mean
the difference between a profit and
loss" On the third point they ask that
u any award Is made In favor OF the
United Mine Workers. some substantial
assurance be given that they refrain
Hom mterferfng with non=union men.
~ was arranged that the attorneys
nrst cali their witnesses. and five were
produced, who tertified that the strikers
others who worked during the suspen-
Gcn- The frst witness was Mrs. James
wenston the WIDOW OF the murdered
Mr. Darrow asked the son-in-iaw who
vas paying for the lawyers who are rep
srsns sent,ns tne , n9,n-union miners. Then
evxrcd during the sessions.
1ne colloquey was carried on for some
tine: Finally Chairman Gray. after CON
commissioners thought il immateriai
w4Q was back OF the non-union men.
1hs miners had the fathers OF two Of
before the coal strike commission that
tney worked all night in silk mills tes-
tiiy q the hearing. The operators sub
show that one OF these men and his la
porer were paid slesl and the other and
his laborer Ns00 last year John Demko,
ana DI of SIX ns sn srs syss s that iSs fGS
d}vsded the si6sl.
:. SvsEstt ,s wasFsn " rror Of the operators conn
that this was not so. Each man prom.
ised to take his girl out OF the silk mill.
Shsirman Gray asked for an explana-
thcn from the Pennsylvania Coal COM
pany, which Is controlled by the Erie
Railroad company regarding the wages
The statements OF wages mentioned
We're handed TO the commission some
days ago by the company and did not
indicate that more than two persons fig
ured in tile distribution Of the wages.
w. A. May, general manager OF the
fsnnsylvania Coal company. was called
70 the witness stand, and explained
the company's mine II would be difficult
20 show In every case how many men
shared iR one pay -. -
miners had no confidence In the figures
submitted by the company and added
that the way they were handed In was
The deputy factory inspector OF the
Scranton district was examined regard
ing child labor lie said that 1900 bows
js years. are employed in the mills in
that vicinity Chairman GRAY suggested |
that the pennsylvania legislature be pe-
laws regarding child labor
Three state mine inspectors were unani- |
nous IN testifying that the companies |
IN their districts had no rules requiring |
the miners 10 stay in the mines all day. |
The Inspector said that the miners in his |
district did not average I'VE hours work /
\ day. the same witness said that most |
Of the accidents were due 70 the ne9li- |
eencc or misjudgment OF the workmen.
The inspectors In reply TO questions
by the commissioners, said that some
times they were accompanied IVY company
ofhcials. but that many times they visit. |
sd the workings alone
Az s o'clock the commission adjourned |
until tomorrow.
The views Of the operators are ont.
'ined IA the following statement. which
has been laid before the commission:
"All the anthracite coal I'm the United
States IN found In a few counties OF
The conditions OF mining
IRE 30 different In different fields. and |
wen In the same mine that II IL not
practicable TO adopt any uniform meth
"a Of mining for the whole region The
VIII show that II is the ac.
purpose Of the United Mine
Workers OF America 10 organize all coal
nine employees and thus form a monopoly
N the labor needed for the fuel supply
IsmaDded br the comfort and prospect
y Of the American people.
After the strike settlement Of 1900
lnion men refused 10 work with non.
'nion men Ind there were over 100 strikes
n one year IN various parts Of the an
brscite reeioa. Unreasonable demands