New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-11-18

mans plao. when a strike Was ordered. lie de-
clared that ne would not speak TO or associate
with such q man. and considered him actually as
nothing There laugh among the spec
fstors mostly mine workers. AT this. because
Mr MacVeagh had asked MI Mitchell TO pre-
END that he CMacVeaghD was a scab, and to
...l hat ne would call him and how ne would
ircat him Mr. Mitchell was rather bitter iD
lis description Of a seab declaring his relation
20 the uuion 20 be the same as that OF Benedict
Arnold TO the American colonies.
Instances OF boycotting with relation to non
union men were told OF. and Mr.. Mitchell's opin-
ion asked He would not admit that these boy
colts had occurred but ne did not dsapprove
~ any boycott that was within the Law. he did
admit however. that he would regard it as
Going 70 a great extreme TO deny storekeeper
the right 10 supply the necessares of life 10 any
one and said that he would not sustain such
action that he did not believe in starving men,
even n they were ''scabs.'
Mr.. MacVeagh said: Il ask you as the head
Of the organization do YOU not think 1t is the
crying need Of your order to legislate against
boyCOttinE?"
FAvORs A LAWFUL BOYCOTT.
No. sir: do not" Mitchell answered. TT
depends on the character Of the boycott. i am
not in favor Of illegal boycott but am IN
favor of the boycott as IL IS lawful 10 Apply IL
~Would YOU think it lawful to destroy the
business OF other citizens not connected with
the coal mining industry in any way, because
other men. working still for their living, dealt
with them
That would be perfectly legal right The
men would have the right to spend their money
wherever they pleased, and for whatever rea-
they pleased"
But would they have right to give a store
keeper a notice that they would not deal with
him?"
They would have a right 10 tell him their
reasons for preferring TO deal some other place.
All. yes. that may be: bu. if they Joined to-
sether TO do that il would be intimidation. would
u not? You must remember, Mr.. mitchell, tnat
This is intimidation purely on soeou' -, oi q
ference OF opinion. Have you right 10 lntInI-
date an American and compel him 10 ShaLss
his opinion or his action If his action Is lawful
by any form Of boycOttingY
u can only say as 1 have said before, that
men have right 10 spend their money with
whom, they please wherever they please"
do you think il is an American system
which ought 10 be extended upon us. the owners
81 these properties. that whenever MAJORITY
Of our worhmen differ from a minority in opin-
ion as 10 the hours Of labor or conditions or
employment the majority shall be at liberty 10
intimidate the minority and the members OF their
fsssilies into abandoning their honest conVic-
tiOhs the subject?'
1T depends entirely on what you mean by in
limitation MT Mitchell answered.
Mr.. MAcvEAGH DESCRIBES INT1NI-
DATION.
You know perfectly we'll what it is You
know you would be intiridated and your family
would be intimidated if the grOceryman in your
village were informed that he would deal with
you az his peril: IL your children. when they
went out Of the gate, were called by this cpl
tibet which you think not commendable but
admissible: II the wife, when she appeared on
the street, were treated s If she leper.
That is intimidation, and We all know what II
Is. Now, why cannot your organization come
up like American men and say that II is a
Cowardly practice. that il is un-American, that
II is brutal and unmanly and that you VIII
abolish Il? Why cannot you do that?"
Well to begin with. I should be very much
opposed 10 our organization taking position
that would place the non-unionist. the man who
worked, the man who sought 70 destroy the
hopes and aspirations OF the great bulk of the
men, the man who sought to destroy the hopes
Of the children. on the same plane Of respecta-
bility as the man who fights for these American
principles"
Mr.. Mitchell declared that ne did not oppose
union men serving in the militia, that he con-
sidered it the right Of every one to perform the
duties OF citizenship In reference TO the violence
committed during the strike, President Mitchell
IN replying to the assertion that there were
fourteen murders said that in only three of
them were union men accused, that the others
were either accidents or had been committed
by Coal and Iron police or soldiers. OF the
cases Of dynamiting. which were quoted 10 him
he intimated that he would bring witnesses 20
snow that the coal companies responsible
Tor some OF them, and not the union men, the
object being 10 withdraw the public sympathy
from the strikers.
DO YOU not know" asked Mr. MacVeagh
mat Nou never had ghost Of a chance 10 win
ms strike until you commenced intimidation OF
the men. women and children?'
= 40 not see how You can imagine that" re-
pied Mr. Mitchell. because when the strike
Was Hrst ordered every man came out
We'll said Mr.. MacNeagh, ever since the
reign OF terror commenced I said that Won
would win the strike"
Later Mr.. Mitchell declared: Even in the
absence OF the alleged lawleSsness ! do not think
single mine could have been operated"
MUST STOP USE OF SOFT COAL. AT ONCE
Commissioners Lederle OF the Board OF Health
believes there is enough anthracite coal coming
into the city 10 supply contractors who are erect
ing high buildings. in which stationary engines