The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-11-19


as supreme court on trade union mat
ters.
Replying to Mr.. MacVeagh's ques-
tions regarding union men belonging to
the National Guard. Mr.. Mitchell said
no local in his union had ever expelled
a man from the union for belonging to
the guard, and that no national labor
union of any kind ever had done such
thing.
Francis r. Gowan, representing the
Lehigh Valley Coal Company, followed
Mr.. MacVeagh and questioned Mr..
Mitchell regarding his comparison OF
wages paid in the bituminous fields as
against those paid in the anthracite.
Mr.. Mitchell was unable to say how
many mines are so equipped as to enable
them to weigh coal, and he did not think
the expense of equipping them would be
very great. Mr.. Mitchell, answering
further questions by Mr.. Gowan, relter-
ated his former statement that one of
the principal grievances of the men was
the amount of topping required on
each car.
For the first time during the session,
the members of the commission then en-
tered into a general cross examination
of the witness on points which the prev
ious testimony had not brought out.
Replying to Bishop Spalding, Mr..
Mitchell said that operators could form
a coalition and stop the mining of coal
throughout the United States.
Commissioner Watkins thought the law
would prevent the operators doing that,
by reason of their Incorporation, but Mr..
Mitchell said that they had the right to
shut down their mines.
Judge Gray asked the witness if his
society did not depend, after all, on the
old economic truth that all great forces,
which tend to uplift and carry on social
advancement and civilization depend
upon the average desire of the individual
to better his own condition and to work
for wages; and upon the desire of a
man who has property to utilize it and
get an income from it.
''I think that probably Is true" was
Mr.. Mitchell's response.
Judge Gray: IF you can imagine all
men ceasing to work at once the whole
social machine would stop?"
Mr. Mitchell said: yes"
Commissioner Wright asked "Do you
consider it justifiable for the employers
in certain district in order to resist
the demands of the labor union, to
/ paralyze that industry to any group of
industries?"
mo, do not think it is proper" Mr..
Mitchell replied.
would the same answer be made if
l should substitute unions instead of
| 'employers?'"
Il think in either case" answered Mr..
Mitchell, 'some other avenue of ad-
justment than the paralyzation of the
industry should be sought
Mr. Mitchell, answering Commission
er Wright said the United Mine Workers
did not incorporate because the step was
not necessary. An organization, to be-
| come financially responsible, he said,
must have a large fund, and this the
working people did not have. He said
| that employers who object to treating or
| contracting with the union, because ii
is not Incorporated, would oppose treat
| ing with it anyhow.
Commissioner Wright asked Mr.
Mitchell what he meant by recognition
of the union, and the witness replied
ut means that the employers shall
make agreements regarding hours OF
| labor, wages, etc, with the union, and
that the union, as such, would be held
responsible for a rigid compliance with
| these agreements
The cross examination was next takeS
| up by w. w. Ross, of New York, counsel
| for the Delaware, Lackawanna and Wes-
)tern, who examined Mr.. Mitchell al
great length on bituminous mining in
and about Spring Valley, Illinois, where
Mr.. Mitchell dug coal for a dozen years
Mr.. Ross passed to the hours worked
| by miners, and in the course of lone
| line of questions, Mr.. Mitchell said that
on the days the breakers are worked
ten hours, the miners are in the mines
seven, eight and nine hours. The at
| torney then took up the question of in
| crease in wages, and the witness stood
by the reasons given in his preliminary
statement of the miners case to the
commission.
The commission then adjourned.