The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-12-18

duties Of the commission in this case is
to ascertain the value Of labor in and
about the mines. 1t is purely a business
proposition. 1t is the-value of labor, and
not the necessities of the laborer, that we
are trying to ascertain The laborer is
worthy of his hire, but the hire is fixed
according to what he does, and not by
what he needs.
LAS to the length of a working day:
This is matter in which individual
operators are particularly interested. AS
a rule their workings are deep, and veins
of coal are thin. They necessarily have
greater expense for pumping and lifting
the coal. The business itself necessarily
entails large fixed charges. It may well
be that the difference between an eight
hour and a ten-hour day, to the operator,
might mean the difference between the
profit and loss. s1t
1.-The varying conditions Of work at the
respective mines make it impossible to lay
down a hard and fast rule that will 10
equal justice to all concerned.
IF any award is made by the COM
mission in favor of United Mine Workers,
we claim that. as condition precedent
there should be some substantial assur-
ance on the part Of such United Mine
Workers. that they will in the future re-
frain from in any way interfering with or
| molesting persons who wish to work in
or about the mines but who do not be-
long to the union. -.-.., per
1.-THE wanton persecution of non-union
men. who only ask to be allowed to earn
their daily bread in peace. is a shame to
those who commit or allow such persecu
ton and blot on the administrative
justice in the state of Pennsylvania.
Without the assistance of mob violence
and terrorization no strike could exist for
any length of time.
We could have produced coal during
Ia Sfrit in, 1.1,, Hos
than were actually mined if the men who
desired to work for us had not been
stoned and beaten and even threatened
with death unless they abandoned their
work. ..-..es
The statement is signed by I. III. Burns
and G. H. Reynolds, counsel for the in
dividual operators.
1t was arranged that the attorneys rep
resenting the non union men should first
call their witnesses, and five witnesses
were produced, who testified that strikers
had killed one man and had more. or less
seriously annoyed two other men who
worked during the suspension. The first
witness was Mrs. James Wenston, the
wife of the murdered man, and the Sec
ond was her son n-law.
Mr.. barrow asked the son -in-law who
was paying for the lawyers who are rep
resentlng non union men, and then ensued
the liveliest tilt that has occurred in the
i -
the witness objected, and Mr. Darrow in
sisted that he and the commission had a
right to know who were back Of the non
union men. but Chairman Gray differed
with him. The chairman said it made no
difference if the operators were paying for
the lawyers. He added that it matters
nothing in a court of justice where man
is tried for murder who pays for the
prosecution. so long as justice is done.
Mr.. barrow insisted he had right to
know. because this was peculiar case.
and Congressman Brumm, also for the
miners, claimed that the non-unfon men
had virtually formed a union. because
they had asked the commission to recog-
nize them iE the award and protect them
from losing their places. and that they
also asked for an increase in pay.
81 The colloquy was carried on for some
time. and finally Chairman Gray consulted
his colleagues, and as a. result quietly