The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-11-18
MITCHELL STILLIN
THE WITNESS BOX
Concluded from Page 3.)

him. but you are generally In accord? A.
believe MIR. Roberts to be a supporter
of the union movement. q. DR.. Roberts
says In q publication called "rhe Anthra-
cite Coal Industry on page Is as | am
assured; employees under monopolistic
control. share in the increased profits of
operators, and for this reason working
men often do not object to Il monopoly.
If the Miners tinion'--That is your or
ganization-"and the coal syndicate
there isn't any but if there Is my friend
Mr.. Wolvcrton will take care of it and |
am not In 1T 0aughter)--'if the Miners
union and the coal syndicate can agree
in their common interest as against the
public'-there Is where YOU strike me,
you see-'thcre is no reason why there
cannot be long season of industrial
prosperity In the anthracite coal fields.
Self interest"-There we come again to
the question of Cain--"shoud unite both
capital and labor in the anthracite coal
fields, and 1t can be DONE IL practical rea-
son on both sides shall control" DO you
adhere to that sentiment?
A. That is not an expression OF my
views. by any means.
q. Do YOU favor union of the miners
coal operators in common interest as
against the public. A. No; do not favor
1T as against the public.
O. Well will you, assuming that neither
our freight rates pay dividends to the
owners of the property nor our coal COM
panies pay any dividends to the owners
of the property, and as it is impossible to
subtract something from Nothing. will
YOU point out why Mr.. Roberts is not ex-
actly right in declaring that the union
you ask will be against the public? A. L
should not care to point out at all any
thing about that statement of Mr. Rob-
erts. We expect Dr. Roberts to testify
will be abundantly able to substantiate
his own statements.
Engineers and Pump Runners.
Referring to the calling out of the
steam men, engineers and pump run
ners, Mr.. MacVeagh proceeded to show
that 1T was done to put the operators
to the alternative of deciding in twelve
days whether they would grant the
miners demands or suffer the destruc
tion of their property with its conse-
quence of indefinite idleness and coal
famine.
q. Undoubtedly; but you still do not
get the point. You are good enough
American--as good as any American-to
know that no American accepts dictaton
kindly He does not like the limit drawn
on him either ir games uaughter) or in
life, and the moment YOU draw a limit
of twelve days and annex to the conces-
sion of your demand that specific length
of time. under u threat that their prop
erty will be destroyed, YOU are doing
something totally different from calling
out the mine Workers. totally different
class of action; because, as | saw YOU
.',, .,',, ~ o.is a. .ne wy
to ioin the mine nn.,ers ana The ,ni,,a
workers. but Won are striking ar that
third class which YOU two ought to ioin
to exploit-the public. A. Well, Mr.. Nc
NeaGh, ! quite agree that no one likes to
be dlctated to. but when men are ad-
@Niaeu @ 10 go 10 .he empowers ana request
III W pei.iit @ t.ielii ~ "oih an sls,,t-
differences. when they offer to defer to
then the time comes for dictation
O. Very we'll then. If that twelve days
was given for the purpose, and was n
reasonable time for the nurpose Of allow
ing other men TO come in and preserve
the propertv by taking. the places of the
men who went on strike. that is reason
able: that I can perfectly understand. !
but then Won call that man who goes in
to help preserve our property a .'scab."
and YOU subject him and his family to a
lif. which IL Is needless again to charac-
terizc. but which is intolerable because
he comes in to protect our property from
dc struction. when our property is 10 fur
nIsh the nublic with coal. and to furnish
your men with employment. and l. would