The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-12-18
Begin Their Case Before
 Commission. s THE LIvELlEsT DAY YET
MT. Darr0w and Chairman
 Gray Have Argument.
Attorneys for the Companies Contend That question of Recognition ot
 the Union Is Not Up for Settlement.

scranton, fd., Oec- la-IHe duthIaCite coal operators opened their side of the controversy with the mine workers to- day before the strike commission and the attorneys who are on record before the commission representing the non-union men who have been admitted to the arbi- pation scheme. began calling witnesses.
 The sessions today were probably the Hveliest yet held by the commission. In the afternoon Lawyer Darrow had a spir- fitted discussion with Chairman Gray as to whether or not the miners had right to know who is paying the lawyers rep resenting the non-union men before the commission MT. Darrow asserted they were employed by the cosa operators.
 Preceding this. simon P. Woiverton. 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 recognition of the union is not an Issue before the commission. which brought out protest from MT. Darow. The latter asserted that if 1t were not, then the operators should be forbidden from presenting their testimony that tended to show the union was responsible for all the alleged vio- lence committed during the strike
 Alleged Unfairness.
 The alleged unfairness of the wage statement came to the notice of the com mission as result of it's inquiry into the child labor question in this vicinity. Sey- erai little girls testified on Monday that they worked all night in a silk mill in order to help their fathers who were em- ployed in the mines and receive poor pay. Yesterday Everett Warren, who rap resents the Erie Company, which controls the Pennsylvania Coal Company in whose mines some of these fathers worked nan6ed to the commission a msmoran- dun showing that one father last year received about $1,400 for himself and la- borer, and that the other father received q 500 for bimsels and iaborer.
 At the opening of the session today the miners placed the two parents on the stand and they swore that the earnings mentioned we're divided among from four to six men. This testimony surprised the commissioners and Judge Gray asked if the figures on the memorandum were taken from the wage statement already filed by the company with the commission and MT. Warren replied in the afirma- tive.
 Chairman Gray then requested counsel Tor the company to indicate in his state ment hsnded up whether the figures giv- en are for one. two or more men.
 We don't say 1t shakes our faith fin the statement" he continued. ''Unless you can show. however, that there are none of these cases such as suggested by this testimony 1t will very materially shake our faith in it.
 The company through its General Man ager w. 4. May, was permitted to make a statement. He said:
 Manager Mays Statement.
 'The Pennsylvania Coal Company has two systems. one where there are four men in a place and known as a four handed place, and in which there are two men and kriown as a two-handed place. There may be places where only one man works but that fact Is not known to the company itself. The company does not keep a record of the individuals in a contract or the number. It only keeps the name of the man in whose name the place Is run and it pays only him.
 MT. May said he did not know whether two. four or six men worked to earn the money indicated on the memorandum handed to the clerk. adding that he got the figures from the auditor of the com pany.
 The miners here rested their case and MT. Wolverton read a statement which represented the views of all the large coal companies.
 Ira Fl. Burns. one of the attorneys for the independent operators then presented the opening statement of the individual as follows:
 ''The objscJ of this commission is prob- ably without any precedent in this coun- try. It is not based on the common or statute law but has for its foundation only the agreement of the operators and workmen. It has no power to enforce It's Judgments and it's findings must neceSsa- rily be largely advisory.
 Tt seems to us that the questions, so far as they concern the individual opera tors represented by US. may be consid- cred under three general heads; first. wages; second. hours of labor; third, non union men and discrimination.
 "As to wages it may be well to refer 10 the terms as stated by the coal oper- ators in their suggestion of the appoint ment of the commission as follows:
 we suggest committee to be appoint ed sby the President of the United States if he is willing to perform that service. to whom shall be referred all questions at issue between the respective companies and their own employees, whether they belong to a union or not, and the de- ,fsion of that commission shall be ac- ,epted by us.
 Not Fighting Union.
 we are not discriminating against the United Mine Workers, but insist that the miners union shall not discriminate against or refuse to work with non-union men; that there shall be no deterioration n quantity or quality of work. and that, owing to the varying physical conditions ,f the anthracite mines each colhery is problem by itself.
 Tt will be noted that the question at ssue arc not between the operators as a body and the workmen as another body, 1ut are between the respective companies md their own employees.
 We maintain that according to the erms of the submission my question as o wages should be settled by an exami- ration of the complaints and conditions at .ach separate colliery and that the only ssues involved are those between the operator of each mine and the men actually in his employ, Again we think he commission before taking any action ooking to an increase of wages should Nak in