The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-12-18
LIVELY TILT IN
THE Commission
Miners Counsel Wants to Know
Who Pays Non-Union Lawyer.
QUESTION NOT ANSWERED
Judge Gray Did Not Regard This as
Material-Coal Operators Open
Their Side Of the
QUESTION NOT ANSWERED
lRv Associated Press.)

S,eA1 pa. Dec 1.-THE an
,hracite coal operators opened their side
of ...e controversy with the mino WORK
ers to-day before the strike commission
anu the attorneys. who are on recoi
before the commission as representa-
the non-union men, who have peen au-
nitted to the arbitration scheme, began
calling witnesses.
The sessions to-day were probaniy tne
liveliest yet held by the commission. AT
the morning session the m ners lawyers
challenged the fairness of certain vase
statements handed to the commits sion
bv the Pennsylvania Coal Company, and
in the afternoon Lawyer barrow had d
spirited discussion with Chairman Gray
as to whether or not the miners had
right to know who is paying the LAWYERS
representing the non-union men before
the commission.
RECOG NlT1ON OF UNION.
Mir. Darrow asserted they we're en-
Moved by the coal operators. Precedin
his. Simon p Wolverton. counsel for the
Reading Company. who made an address
on behalf of the large coal company, and
made the point in his address that recos-
milton Of the union is not an issue he-
fore the commission. which brought out
protest from Mr.. Darrow. Inc lat er
claimed that if it were not, then the
operators should be forbidden from pre-
senting testimony thai tended to snow
the union was RESPONSIBLE for all the al
legged violence committed during the
sIlhe.
The alleged unfai1ness OF the wage
statement came to the notice of the conf
mission as result Of its inquiry into the
cl.ilu labor question in this vicinity
Several little girls testified on Monday
H.
in order to help their fathers, who We're
cmplaysd in the mines and received poor
pay Yesterday Everett Warren, who
represents the Erie Company. which con-
trolls the Pennsylvania Coal Company. in
whose mines some of these fathers
worked handed to the commission d
memorandum. showing that one father
last year received S1.4to for himself and
a laborer. and that the othsr father re-
ceived $3.50 for himself and a laborer.
At the opening of the session to-day the
mi, ers placed the two parents on the
stand. and they swore that the earnings
mentioned was divided among from four
to six men.
This testimony surprised the commits
sion.
\ LIVELY TILT.
II was arranged that the ATTORNEYS
representing the non-union men should
FIRST call their witnesses, and hVe Wit
nesses were produced who testified that
strikers had killed one man anu had
mere or less seriously annoyed two other
r,en who work I'd during the suspension.
Th. first witness WIS Mrs. James Wen
ston the wife of the murdered man, and
,:le second was her Son-in-law. Mr. Oar
row asked the son-n-law who was pay
ing for the lawyers who are representing
The non-union men, and then ensued the
l., eliast tilt that has occurred i'll the ses-
sions of the commission.
Counsel for the witness objected and
Mr.. Darrow insisted that he and the
commission had a right to know who
were back Of the non-union meal. but
Chairman Gray differed with him. The
! oollocuy was carried on for some time,
end finally Chairman Gray consulted his
| colleagues. and as q result quietly an
| swered that the commissioners thought
| it immaterial who was back of the non
| union men