The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-11-19
President of the Mine Workers
Parties the Thrusts of Emf
nent Legal Talent.
COMMISSION TAKES A HAND.
Asks Questions to Bring Out
Points Not Developed by the
Lawyers-Unionism Is
the Vital Issue.

| their thrusts with the calm deliberation
| which has characterized him throughout the
| inquiry.
The counsel for the coal companies were
unable to confuse him or drag from him an
admission that the union was responsible
| for any rioting.
Macveagh, who began his cross-examina-
ton of Mr.. Mitchell on Saturday, concluded
| at II o'clock to-day. The distinguished at
| torney centered most of his energies in try
| ing to break down the miners reasons for
asking for a yearly agreement with the
companies on hours of labor. wages and
other conditions, which, If made, would be
recognition of the union
Mr. MacVeagh's principal aim through
out his questioning of Mr.. Mitchell was to
show that the Mine Workers Union, because
OF alleged acts of intimidation, violence
and the use of the boycott by its members,
proved itself unfit to be party to a con-
tract.
FIGHT OVER UNION.
Mr.. Mitchell would not admit. nor even
assume for the sake of illustrating points
OF reign of terror existing in the anthra-
cite field during the last six months. The
recognition of the union is looked upon as
the most important question before the
commission, and 1t is quite evident from
the trend of the proceedings thus far that
the companies will oppose it to their utmost
ability.
MIR. Gowen and Mr. Rose questioned Mr..
Mitchell principally regarding conditions
existing at the collieries of the companies
they represent. These questions were more
or less technical. Mr. Mitchell's answers,
as rule. differed very little from the
reasons given in his preliminary statement
to the commission for improved conditions
for the mine workers.
Interest in the proceedings Is not wan
ing. The large crowds which have been
wedged in the courtroom in the preceding
days Of the hearings were in evidence.
Neither is there a falling off in the attend
ance OF attorneys. of whom there are
almost two score present at each session.
Mr.. MacVeagh in resuming his cross-ex-
animation said he would be glad to get an
expression as to the influence of acts of
violence upon the temper and disposition of
the union men said to have committed
them. The witness said that he would not
assume that the reports of violence are true
II. said he, Forest City. which had
peen referred to. would be an example of
all towns and cities in the anthracite field,
1t would indicate that We were a very law
abiding. religious people"
The question:" Mr.. Macveagh said, "is
whether or not you have taken the proper
methods to prevent a repetition of violent
acts when they have occurred"
He did not care, he said. by whom these
We're committed.
SPIRIT OF VIOLENCE.
What 1 am trying to show" he con-
tinued. is that there is growing spirit
OF violence and disregard Of the law in
your organization and that your influence
them &c
abiding and peaceful, as you intend to have
them"
Under this arraignment of the union Mr.
Mitchell retained his complete composure
The question met with a ready response
The fear that my influence" said he, sis
not sufficient to deter men from the COM
mission of crime is a contradiction Of the
claims often made about me-" ~
he was free to say that some men NAV
nave been deferred from going to work.
because OF violence, but the strike itself
lost more in public opinion by reason of
that than 1t could possibly gain
The cross-examiner and the witness tbsr
plunged into spirited colloquy over the
question of whether one man has the right
to prevent another man fsom selling his
labor.
The best answer Mr.. Macyeagh could
draw from the miners chief was that he
did not approve of any one committing an
unlawful act.
RIGHT TO STRIKE
Mr.. MacVeagn read statement regard
Ing the right to strike as belonging to the
personal freedom of workingmen. He also
took the view that In exercising that free
dom those who cease to work must not in
terfere with the liberty of others who wish
to work.
I'VE do not want anarchy" said Mr.
Mitchell. "and that is anarchy pure and
simple-the right of every man to do abso-
lutely as he pleases regardless of its ef-
fects on society"
This is the language Of a very carefully
disguised arerchy," Mr.. MacVeagh re-
marked, because it is the language Of
Archbishop Ireland.
Archbishop Ireland never expected 1t to
be used in that sense. / might say that
Archbishop Ireland is a member of a COM
mittee of which am also member, ;Shich
has declared for a trade-unon idea"
Answering further question, Mr.. Mitch
ell declared that IL Archbishop Ireland's
statement meant that men have no right
to picket he disagreed with him. Mr.. Mitch
ell added that he did not know that the
Archbishop was regarded as a supreme
court on trade-union matters.
The attorney and the witness wandered
from the rules of cross-examinat;on and
INDUCED in an argument over the propriety
of any one criticising acts and decisions of
courts.
QUESTION OF ANARCHY.
Mr.. MacVeagh thought 1t was wrong to
follow such course, and that it tends to
breed anarchy. Mr.. Mitchell said he was
pleased to say the courts. as a rule, are
fair, but he regretted that in the course of
his experience he had found some Judges
against labor. He referred to Judge Jack
son of West Virginia, who, he said had
made a great many serious reflections on
men who gave UP their lives to the cause
of labor.
He added that there were no anarchists
In the trade unions. Replying to Mr.
MacVeagh's questions regarding union men
belonging to the National Guard, Mr.
Mitchell said no local In his union had ever
expelled man from the union for belong
ing to the guard and that no national la
bor union of any kind had ever done such
a thing. A little union in New York State.
he said, had taken such action, and It had
been heralded over the country He was
not responsible for what some other organ
fzations did.
Mr.. Macveagh concluded his cross-exam-
ination at this point.
As soon as Mr.. Macveagh had finished,
Judge Gray said the commission did not
wish to limit the liberty of any one appear
ing IN this case as representing others. but
they believed they had obtained as much
information as they are likely to get on the
subjects touched upon.
Judge Gray announced however that IL
there was any new line of examination
the commission would not object to hearing
the testimony.
Former Congressman wolverton. repre-
senting the Philadelphia and Reading Coal
and Iron Company. informed the commits
sion that future eXamnat tious wouId be