The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-11-19

nation Mr. Mitchell was cross exam
ined by former Congressman Simon F.
Wolverton, counsel for the Philadel-
phla & Reading Coal and Iron company.
Mr.. Mitchell said it would be imDos-
sible for him to give in detail the con-
dit1ons at each mine or even under each
company. He also declared that 1t
would neither be possible nor desirable
to divide the United Mine Workers into
two separate organizations. one btu
minous and the other anthracite.
The anthracite Miners he said.
have had independent and separate or
CARNATIONS in the past. They have had
several of them They have gone They
40 not want any more of their organlza-
ton to go the same way"
The reply of Mr.. Mitchell excited some
interest because of the fact that this
was a suggestion made by Carroll D.
Wright in his report of the strike to
President Roosevelt
James H Torrey of Scranton. repre-
senting the Delaware & Hudson COM
pany, followed with number of inquir-
les on the subject of the riot that oc-
CURED at Shenandoah.
Mr.. Mitchell was emphatic in saying
that the reports were grossly exaggera-
ted and that but one life was lost The
sherif's appeal to the governor for aid,
he said, was overdrawn.
The individual operators, who have
not up to the present time pressed their
case before the commission. through
one of their attorneys. Ira H. Burns of
Scranton, inquired of the commission
if they would be given the opportunity
! to examine witnesses when questions
arise which affect them differently from
| the companies Judge Gray answered
that they would.
Mr.. Mitchell. in reply to Mr.. Burns.
said that when a man strikes he does
not voluntarily give up his job, but he
strikes for an Improvement in the con-
ditions in his job. If he wins he gets
back the position. if he loses he goes
back with bis hat in his hand and asks
for a job. Judge Gray here interrupted
| to explain the understanding of the
commission with respect to the return
! ing to work of men who had been on
strike. He said:
I think the understanding was that
pending the consideration of the ques-
tions by this commission the strikers
were to return Immediately to work and
l think the further understanding IS
don't let me be misunderstanding that
| the nonunion men should not be inter-
fered with nor displaced from employ
ment generally by the return of the un-
ion men,
Mr.. Mitchell declared with emphasis
in the course of subsequent examina-
ton that the miners will carry out. tc
the letter the decision of the commits
sion, "or go out of our union"
Judge Gray then announced the decis-
| ion of the commission in the matter OF
the application of John t. LenAhln and
/ John T. O'Brien, attorneys for the non
union men, to appear in the case. lr
the light of all their claims, said Judge
Gray, they would be allowed to appear
! but the commission could not consent
to the Withholding from the public oi
/ the names of the nonunion men as JhciI
attorneys had desired. After M=. Lena
han assented to this. Judge Gray an
nOunced that the commission would ses
that no unfair use would be made Of its
names
Mr.. Darrow insisted that Messrs
4 Lenahan and O'Brien really repres sent =
fthe operators and not the non0nioa men
Whether they be here in that way zOl
not Judge Gray quickly replied, the,
represent an important element in tn
Investigation. men who work for thei
/ living and who are interested in tn
l. findings of this commission. We hav'
considered that very carefully from al
sides.''