The daily morning journal and courier., 1903-02-12
ATTACK ON MINERS UNION
(Continued from First Page.)

fomented and encouraged. They are thus able to disclairn responsibility but what is their disclaimer worth?
 "Of course they are bound to go through the form of advising their fol- lowers to avoid violations of the law in order to escape responsibility to the law. What else wolud they have done if they had been secretly melting them to violence and crime? If they were in fact accountable for what has been charged to them, they would have said and done exactly what they have said and done.'
 With regard to the Lehigh Coal and Navigation company, MT. Dickson said the employees for a generation had been paid by the lineal yard and no evidence had been produced to show that they wanted a change. Concerning trade unionisnl. he said:
 Where a trade union has been form ed by men in a special industry, so the body of employees most concerned that it's control is in the hands of they constitute 8. natural party to any dealings in respect to the rate of wages to be paid and so long as they are employed they stand in contractural relation to their employer. Without any formal organization as a trade union the employees must act through a committee, or any attorney they may choose to select to represent them. This is a natural and normal relation and the representa- of both sides know what they are talking about, and the attention of both sides is confined to the questions which immediately con- cern them. But the United Mine Work CTS union is composed of men in pro- portion of three out of four belonging to different region, with headquar- ters a thousand miles distant, having no common or identical interest except as the mines of Siberia or the Trans yaal have the same interest as the bi- luminous or anthracite miners of the United States to get the higher pay.
 ''Upon the main question of whether the wages are sufficient and the hours of labor reasonable, it cannot be dis puted that the weight of the evidence is altogether on the side of the opera tors.
 "As has been often pointed out, a trade union may sometimes secure an advance in wages sooner, or delay re- duction longer than the employees, if left to themselves, but they can make no change in the essential conditions of every industry
 Simon P Wolverton, counsel for the Reading company, in his argument ex- pressed opposition to the union because the bituminous representation on the national board is so much greater than the anthracite representation.
 "A man can do nothing," he said, without the consent of this morgan ized irresponsible, unincorporated body. Is it any wonder the operators do not recognize it? The bituminous miners never ought to be trusted with the control of the anthracite produc- tion. We don't oppose labor unions, but those under sixteen years of age are in partial control of the miners union, and, according to their own tes- tirnony, the union is not q responsible organization. John Mitchell was op- posed to the recent strike, but the con- yention declared it. Michel advised against violence, but there was Tiolen( C. He cannot control the members or the union.
 ''There is every reason why the Unit ed Mine Workers should be chartered The basic principle of the organization is collective bargaining, but they do not want collective responsibility. There were outrages perpetrated during the strike. The members of the union vio- lated the law. If it's ranks are unlaW~ ful, then the organization is unlawful.
 ''The calling out of the pumpmen dur ing the strike was a smart step taken by Mitchell to compel the operators to agree to one of the most important de- mands of the miners-that of an eight hour day"
 Others who presented arguments were J. B. Kerr. representing the Scranton Coal company, and former Judge AL fred Hand, for the Independent opera tors of the Scranton district.