Virginia gazette. [volume] (Williamsburg, Va.) 1893-192?, 1902-12-20
OPERATORS OPEN CASE
Some Testimony of Startling Ma
ture Brought Out.

tuIc DfouEuk Out.
Scranton. Pa. Specialize anthra-
cite coal operators opened their side OF
the controversy with the mine workers
Wednesday before the strike commits
sion and the attorneys who are on rec
ord before the commission as repre-
sonting the non-union ,men. who have
been admitted To the arbitration
scheme. began calling witnesses. The
sessions today were probably the liveli-
est yet held by the commits sion. At
the morning session the min, IS law
yers challenged the fairness OF certain
wage statements handed to the com
mission by the Pennsylvania Coal
Company and in the afternoon Lawyer
barrow had a spirited discussion with
Chairman Gray as to whether or not
the miners had a right 90 know who is
paying the lawyers representing the
non-union men before the commission.
Mr.. Darrow asserted they were employ
ed by the coal operators. Preceding
this. Simon Silverton. counsel for the
Reading Company. who delivered the
opening address on behalf OF all tho
large coal companies. made the point
in his address that the recognition OF
the union Is not an issue before the
I commission. which brought out a pro
test from Mr. barrow. The latter
claimed that IL IL were not. then the
operators should be forbidden from
presenting testimony that tended to
show the union was responsible for all
the alleged violence committed during
4 the strike.
/ The alleged unfairness OF the wage
/ statements came TO the notice OF the
commission as result OF cts inquiry
/ into the child labor question In this vi
cinity. Several little girls testified on
Monday that they worked all night i'm
a silk mill in order 10 help their fathers
along. who were employed in the mines
and received poor pay. Yesterday Ev-
! erett Warren. who represents the Erie
| Company. which controls the Pennsyl-
vania Commercial Company. in whose
mines some of these fathers worked.
I handed 10 the commission a memorial
/ dun showing that one father last year
received 81 400 for himself and Iaborer.
| and that the other father received ST.
600 for himself and laborer. At the
, opening of tho session the miners
placed the two parents on the stand.
I and they swOre that the earnings men
toned was divided among from four 10
six men. This testimony surprised the
commissioners.
Chairman Gray asked that counsel
for the company indicate in tn wage
statement whether the figures we're for
one or two or more men. hut General
Manager May said that he did not
know whether two. four or six men di-
vided the money. He admitted that two
and four men worked in a place. hut
said that the company only paid one
man.
After hearing two mine inspectors
the miners rested their case. and Mr..
Wolyerton formally opened the opera
tors side OF the controversy by read
ing a statement which represented the
views OF all the large coal companies.
Mr.. WolvertOn contended that the pow
ers of the committee are confined to
the questions affecting the rates OF
wages paid and the reduction of the
hours OF labor. and in no way involve
the question OF recognition. or the en-
tering into any agreemene with the
miners union. He declared that the
rate OF wages in the anthracite region
is not 40 OF 90 per cent. lower than
in the soft coal region. but actually
higher, and maintained that the pres
ent system OF weighing was the best
that could be had.
Ira II. Burns, of the attorneys from
the Independent operators. presented
the statement OF the individual compa-
MES. This statement asked that IL the
commissions award favored the mine
workers the latter should give some
assurance that they would not interfere
with non-un!on men.