New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-10-11
TO DESTROY MINERS UNION
MR. WILCOX ASKS THE PRESIDENT TO
PROCEED UNDER THE SHERMAN LAW.

MR. WILCOX ASKS THE PRESIDENT TO
PROCEED UNDER THE SHERMAN LAW.
David WILCOX vice-president nd general
counsel of the Delaware and Hudson RailT al
Company who represents the coal operators
has sent TO President Roosevelt ], r ask
ing that the federal government proceed as-.-'s'
the miners organization o, the ground that the
organization is a conspiracy 10 prevent inter
state commerce The President has referred the
letter 10 the Attorney General along with an
other letter which Mr.. W COX sent TO him on
June Z.
In his letter of his k Mr., Wilcox says
that the methods Of the United Mine workers
OF America. TO whrh he referred in June hao
been condemned since ny United states CIRCUIT
Courts in the Haggerty and Weber cases. the
court in the latter case expressing the beliei
that the ultimate purpose OF the union was not
legal To show that the govern nen' has the
power 70 proceed against the organization MT
WILCOX, In his letter recites the pro'islon OF
the Sherman Antitrust Law declaring Nlesal
any combination or conspiracy IN restraint u
trade OF commerce among fhe states. lie con-
Sinues:
The coal OF the ''trs Is the most I'M. d5Sns SUD
3ect OF its interstate commerce m ihlht VIZ
hrs' association consists = a combination OF per
states OF The tn.on ITS object and eject are TO
control the 'erms upCn VII. this suolect ot inter-
State Interstate shipments. Is direct and nee
essaTy n. Is t.iat TO coal 'e s..lieS -, S
This comhina'ion. therefore not merely restraints
existence OF the s'Ihjer, meter Of suoa commerce
Of the greatest p'h..c interest and importance no
eomerce uouid he imasined The Delaware and
s Sork on &pril @ lS!' for the purpose as ex-
pressed IN us n rter OF furnishing 10 the state
PenSsyivana As s ~ result SS Of T the mine WORKERS
haS baen for he
destroyed obviously combination Mhlch , mas MS
is in every sense a restraint thereon. -,
AS,S9rdingy since The knight case III hss ec Se y,
restraining shipments out OF the STATE are Si1 t
Company agt the United States us L. 5, 2lll.
there Was combination OF manufacturers WITHIN mn
parties out OF their respective States in conpeti-
Te T an Jam Ssf5 Result fGuT u SSi Se "
was therefore necessarily a restraint upon state
any OF the parties 10 it 10 he transported beyond
As already said the Mine Workers combination
does not merely restrain interstate commerce eul
merits OUT OF the state would be illeeal one which
Alb ,utely prevents them would not? Manifestly
es Ess IeT, HI1S S me & sn ST
commerce by preventing the existence OF it's sub
Restraints the shipments OF such matter OF ths
state: Otherwise a oomhiaation which restrained
the law. n Is submitted that the national juris.
dicton Is subject 10 no such limitation.
Il seems very clear. therefore that suit would
sTs Assoeistion as combination ~ restraint Of
isso and that a preliminary injunction would be
sranted which could be enforced by All the power
VAS follo%ed IN the Debs case and was Supported
ence with the mails but also on the ground 81 re-
straint Of shipments from one State TO another.
The letter Of June said Of the demands that
led to the strike:
During last spring, as the result q various con
made certain demands upon The producers Of an
mand that the hours OF labor BE- diminished from
ten hours 70 eight without change IN the OF
wages. The result, q course would be that each
individual worker would receive no greater aggr--
gate Wages but that the expense OF producing coal
mated any claim that the present wages arr INSULT
were eTanted the amount earned by the nf naSn
would be no greater than Il IS noW-the difference
.ess 10 earn y. In the case Of the miners them
adyantsse, because they already work not more re
As 10 them there was a demand that the prices
OF their contract work should be Increased @ per
OF labor OF their helpers from ten 10 eight with
out expense 10 the miners themselves. So thar, as
that the hours OF labor shol AID be reduced without
with the eject OF an addition Of aboIt % per cent
% The cost OF production or not less than $1,000 90
aends paid by all the anthracite coal companies.
ahls ~eele have consumed al tie profits of the
pToolcers unless ~ should be covered by large
ADVANCE IN the price OF coal The producers felt
DENIES BELONGING TO COMBINATION.
Philadelphia, Oct lO-Counsel for the Philadelpbta
and Reading Coal and Iron Company have pre-
pared an answer 20 the application OF " n Hears,
10 the Attorney General OF New-York for the In
sututon OF an action against the company and
Others under the antitrust laws Of NeW-York The
answer, which will be hled in NeW-York, denies
that the prices FOR the coal sold and shipDed nv
the respondent were ever determined by AGREEMENT
contract combination arrangement with fbs
other corporations mentioned In the Application or
is lrnffa "a a..
officers OF the company have occasional meetings
with Others IN Hike business with the view ~
exchanging and considering statistical Information
and data as 20 the state OF the available supply and
the probable demands OF future markets an order
ments. 80 'NHN'e-
The respondent also denies that the prices axed
~ IN March, 1871 al any other time were
estefmlned az an alleged meeting OF the board Of
DIRECTORS OF the Temple Iron Company that a
nl9o.h prles LOT coal was agreed on with other
SSnpsnies haking shown, the answer Concludes
elas ~ mas hot Done or participated IN any act
sontrars 70 the provisions OF the NeW-York IA rs
" submits that no further inquiry should he fDess
hlo the alleg8tiOns cited In the Application
phly VIII make answers denying any connection ~
comUlicity with any Organization - c,r, "
es sci iorth m the allegations OF the Hearst BIN
INVESTIGATING FOR WRIGHT