The Birmingham age-herald., 1902-10-12

There was nothing new in the Tenn essee company's coal strike situation yes terday. About seventy-tive men were at work at Johns and no disorder was re- ported. The strike has been on in the Blue Creek division since last Monday and in the days that have intervened peace and quiet have prevailed.
 W. R. Fairley, national board member of the United Mine Workers. issued the following statement yesterday:
 FaIrley's Statement.
 'I noticed in the papers a statement from Vice President and General Man ager Mccrery. of the Tennessee Coal. Iron and Railroad company, wherein he replies to what he. pleases to calf my 'so- called statements.' I desire to remind Mir. McCrery that at the last conference be- tween him and the district board of the United Mine Workers of America l took occasion 10 request that if suspension of work took place at all or the Tenn essee compapy's coal mines that 1 desired that each side to the controversy would conduct themselves as become gentle men.
 q further requested that that policy be followed. The words 'so-caIled state ments of MT. Fairley' are not. to say the least, courteous and carry the insnuation that am unable to make those state- ments.
 "T beg to assure the public and Mir McCrery that in any statement bearing my name the language is mine, and 1 hold myself responsible for every word any statement may contain.
 was held on October 1 and makes no
 MT. McCrery agrees that a conference denial to my statement that he was told that the suspension would not be called on the assessment, but would be called because we refused to work with dis loyal members of our organization whom we had expelled.
 Contract of July, 1901.
 ''Mr. Mccrery says the equities in this matter are clearly in favor of the Ten nessee company's position and further charges violation of the contract en- tered into with them on July Il. I beg to inform the public that this Is in er- ror He refers to the settlement of July, 1901, to sustain the position and attitude of the Tennessee company by stating that the question of union and non-union men was settled in that convention. It is true that the question was discussed, my information being that the operators had decided to force the issue and insert
 
 the right to employ union and non-unIon men at will That proposition was met by the miners with another proposition that none but union men should be em- poyed.
 Both propositions were withdrawn for reasons that all miners and mine labor CTS in the employ of the Tennessee com. pany were union men, and the company was and had been collecting the dues and assessments from every miner and mine. laborer in their employ, and there fore, the mines were unionized and the miners had nothing to gain by pressing this question and inserting a clause il the contract. A statement was made ir the convention of 1901 by President Flynr and myself when these clauses were withdrawn that we (the miners) would reserve the right at any time to stoI work if non-union men were employed | That statement met with no serious ob | jection from the operators, and the con tract was signed. Therefore, we clain that in view of that fact we have not violated the contract entered into on July | il, 1902.
 Virtual Recognition. l "Mr. McCrery was not a member oi 1 that convention. and probably does not know that those were the terms upon which the 1901 contract was signed. Sc well has that contract been understood that no miner or mine laborer has worked