The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-11-18

operators can be. We do not want
them. They injure us all, Surprising
we do not have trade agreement.
Supposing that is not the result of this
investigation, and the award OF the
commission, the union will still be here.
II Is not within my power or the power
Of the coal companies nor the province
Of the commission, nor is 1t possible to
lcgislate men out of the union unless
they want to go.
Union Will Be Here.
"Thc union will be here. 1t will have
all the power for good or evil that 1t
has now. The coal operators. IL they
desire TO, could not crush the Union.
They cannot wipe 1t out I hope they
would never try to do 1t. Then It Is
going to stay here. As long as 1t is
going to be here. why not have All ar
rangemcnt that will place limitations
on its power as far as the effect of the
discipline of a working force Ia con-
cerned? Let us agree in contract what
these powers shall be, and I dare say
that IL our union violates the contract,
the people of this country will take
good care that we have no union left.
There will he no question about that.
and IL the operators violate 1t. the peo-
pie of the United States will see that
they regret it. That is my view of the
situation. l think we will not have the
very things that you complain of, and
the things that complain of too. We
ought to agree not to do those things
80 far, we are in hearty agreement
said Mr.. MacVcagh, Except as to the
method Of reaching that result. IL
anybody ever attempts to deny to an
American workingman the right to as
sociate himself with other working
men, and be represented in collective
bargaining by you-and they could not
get any better representative--or by
Mr.. Nichols. or anybody they choose to
select. you may call upon me to stand
side by side with you in opposing such
legislation. But my objection is that
that is one question, and my question
is not answered AT all by your expla-
nation, though you undoubtedly intend
ed to answer it. Let me read the cru
cial point of the question: owe are
frequently asked why we do not dis
charge such offenders. I will reply that
it is well-nigh impossible to discharge
a miner in the Illinois mine, without
laying the mine idle in which the Of
fender has been employed. TO dis
charge a. member of your union-and
this is addressed to John Mitchell. pres
ident of the United Mine Workers Of
Amerira-for any cause, gives Offense,
even when his offense is admitted,
which the miners very generally resent.
This being the case, your organizat ton
must find the remedy for the trouble,
1Do nf 1,n f1,n, o11-nC
being powerless to act"
MI. Justi to Testify.
Chairman Gray stated that it was the
intention of the commission to invite
Mr.. Justi to give testimony as to con-
ditions in Illinois. Mr.. Justi is the
commissioner of the Illinois Coal Oper-
ators' association. Mr.. Mitchell pro-
voked laughter by describing him to
Judge Gray as "the agitator of the op-
orators union.'
Some interesting exchanges took
place in a discussion Of the boycotting
question. as will be noted from the
following:
BY Mr. MacVeagh:
q. We have had only two radical and ir-
reconcilable differences: The limitation Of
the hours of labor upon the men desiring
to work longer, and the right to employ
such people as the owners of property
think fit to resist unlawful attack upon
them. Now We come to the third weapon,
and perhaps the most Objectionable fca-
ture which results from your organization
and in saying that do not mean to say
that YOU cause it, or that any other gen.
tleman in it causes it-I say that it flows
from the present temper or your organ1-
zation as water runs down hill. You un-
dertook to explain your attitude about
boycotting, and l could not quite UNDER
stand you, and Yet You We're very lucid as
you always are. Will you please tell me
what are the rights of a man who does not
wish to work i'll one of our coilierieS at the
wages we are willing to pay him. against
another man (and the members of his
family who does wish to WORK In our col
lierieS at the wages we are willing to pay
him?
a. We regard him as an unfair worker.
We think the man is blind to his own in
terests. We think he is joining forces
with the employer to defeat the fair ends
OF those who go on strike. In other
words. he is usually termed by the work.
ing people and others. a "Scab."
=. Now, Mr.. Mitchell. do you know that
just as honestly think your present or
Sanizatlon and your influence in it, and
your inuilence with the country is in
iNllouS 10 TIE True interests Inc work.
ing cases, but I should always despise
myself if l Went around saying: John
Mitchell is a scab.' Why should you say
that of me? a. should not say it of you,
Mr.. MacNeagh, because you would not
take another mans job when he was on
d strike uaughter)
Why Call a Man Scab.
g. | am not talking about that. Why
should you call man 'Scab" who diff
fers from his fellow workmen as to the
wisdom of'continuing to earn a living for
himself under such condition as he thinks
are reasonable, even though he may be
mistaken in that opinion if you choose?
a. 1t is simply general appellation for
every man who works when another one
is on strike, He Is looked upon and |
think justly, in the same light that Bene-
o!ct Arnold was looked upon, or any
traitor.
9. Why should you call me "scab," il
| prefer to work. to continue to earn my
living rather than to lose my wages for
five months? a. Because that Is the gen
eral term that applies to that class of men
who desert their fellow workers and seek
to destroy the objects of their movements
g. Suppose l continued at the lawful
occupation / had heretofore been pursl,-
ing at wages which had been satisfactory
to me before the organizers appeared
what are the limits of the trea tment YOU
would feel justified in extending to me?
You say you would call me .'scab" [
must bear that as well as / can. What
else? A. That Is all U.aughter)
y. If, as matter of fact, in conse-