The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1902-12-19
NEW EVIDENCE
The Day Was a Very Lively One BE-
fore the eCommixsion-The Fairness
ChaIlensed-Questi of the RccOg-
milton of the Miners Union-Wit-
nesses Called by Lawyers Repre-
senting Non-Union Wen Were Put
on the Stand.

Scranton, Pa, December 1.-THE am
thracite coal operators opened their
side of the controversy with the mine
workers today before the strike COM
mission and the attorneys who are on
record before the commission as rep
resenting the non-unio1 men, who have
been admitted to the arbitration
scheme, began calling witnesses.
The sessions today were probably the
liveliest yet held by the commission.
At the morning session the miners
lawyers challenged the fairness of GER
tain wage statements handed 10 the
commission by the Pennsylvania Coal
Company and in the afternoon, Law
with Chairman Gray as to whether or
not the miners had a right to know
who is paying the lawyers representing
the non-union men before the commits
sion. Mr. Darrow asserted they were
employed by the coal operators.
Preceding this, Simon P. Wolv"rton,
counsel for the Reading company. who
delivered the opening address on behalf
of all the large coal companies, made
the point in his address that the recog~
milton of the union is not an ISSUE be-
fore the commission, which brought
out a protest from Mr. Darrow. The
latter claimed that if it were not, then
the operators should be forbidden from
presenting testimony that tended to
show the union was responsible cor all
the alleged violence committed during
| the strike
The alleged unfairness of the wage
| statements came to the notice OF the
commission, as a result of its inquiry
into the child labor question in this
vicinity. Several girls testified on Mon
! day that they worked all night in a silk
mill, in order to help ther fathers
along, who were employed in the mines
and received poor pay. Yesterday
Everett Warren, who represents the
Erie Company, which controls the
Pennsylvania Coal Company in whose
mines some of these fathers worke /,
| handed to the commission a memoran-
| dunn showing that one father last year
received S1,40 for himself and laborer
and that the other father received ST.
| GOO for himself and laborer. At the
opening of the session today, the miners
placed the two parents on the stand.
and they swore that the earning neil
toned was divided among from four to
! six men. This testimony surprised the
| commissioners.
| Chairman Gray asked that counsel
| for the company indicate in the wage
statement whether the figures Were for
| one or two or more men, but General
| Manager May said that he did not
! know whether two, four or six men di-
| vided the money. He admitted that two
| and four men worked in a place, but
| said that the company only paid one
| man.
| After hearing two mine inspectors
/ the miners rested their case. and Mr.
| Wolvertoa formally opened the opera
tors side of the controversy by reading
a statement which represented the
| view ot all the large coal compa nies
| Mr.. Wolverton contended that the pow
ars of the commission are confined to
the questions affecting the rates of
pages paid and the reduction of the
hours of labor, and IN no way involve
the question of recognition, or the en-
miners union. He declared that tha
rate of wages in the anthracite region
is not forty or fifty per cent. lower
than IN the soft coal region, but az
tual!y higher. and maintained that the
present system of weighing was the
best that could be kad.
| Ira H. Burns, one of the attorney
for the independents operators present
ed the opening statement of the indi
vidual companies. This statement ask
ed that if thu commissions award IA
vored the mine workers the latter
should give some assurance that they
would not interfere with non-union
men.
It was arranged that the attorney;
representing the non-union men stould
first call their witnesses. and five VIZ
nesses were produced who testified tha
strikers had killed one man and had
more or less seriously injured two
other men who worked during the Sus.
pension. The first witness was Mrs
James Wenston. the wife Of the mur.
dered man and the second was her son
in-law
MIR. Darrow asked the son-iu-Iaw
who was paying for the lawyers VIII
are representing the nor-union men
and then ensued the livliest tilt tina
has occurred in the sessions of the com
mission. Counsel for the witness OBJ
iected and Mr.. Darrow insisted tina
he and the commission had a right Il
know who were back OF the non-u1ior
men, but Chairman Gray differed witt
him.
The colloquy was carried ON for SOM
time, and finally Chairman Gray con
suited his colleagues and as resul
quietly answered that the commission
ers thought it immaterial who wa
iback OF the non-union men,