The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1903-11-27
COLONEL WALL ON The STRIKE


The Herald with his views on the strike
situation. published yesterday, and Asks
a question which it is a pleasure to an
swer.
To begin with, Colonel Wall says he
thinks The HeraId's editorial on the
governors order calling out the troops
must. If followed in a similar vein, re-
suit in embarrassing the governor and
officers acting under him in their eff
forts to discharge what to him and them
Is regarded as an imperative duty"
With due regard to the coloneTs intel
ligence, The Herald begs leave to differ
from his Interpretation OF that edi-
torial. Nothing in # can be construed
as intended to embarrass the governor.
nor is there any intention to hinder him
and his officers in the discharge Of
what they deem a duty. Having been
called on TO aid the civil authorities the
governor had no other alternative.
The Herald does. however. wish to
call Colonel Wallis attention to his
peculiar position as a member of the
board of arbitration. Relating the
circumstances attending the boards
services, Colonel Wall says: "The re-
ply Of the fuel company was prompt
and i'm great detail, but absolute in re-
fusal to submit 20 arbitration, its right
TO employ or contin3s I'm it's employ men
who were not and did not desire to be-
come members Of the United Mine
Workers Of America. The reply Of the
strikers committee disclaimed authori-
~ to submit to arbitration because Of
their subordination to authority out
side the state and thus all hope Of ar
bitration under any circumstances was.
OF necessity abandoned"
The reply of the fuel company was
not only absolute but it was given out
almost before # was mailed. before the
strikers could act on the invitation and
after the governor had been led to
Suppose that arbitration could be
asreed upon. In exactly similar cir
-styIstances in the anthracite strike, the
arbitration committee held. in effect,
that no award could be made affecting
thc right of employers to employ whom
they chose nor Of the right of men to
work whether they belong to unions or
not. If the fuel company had faith in
The justice of it's position, why could it
not afford to arbitrate2 1t is very
reedy To avail itself of state protection
az state expense. could it not as well
depend upon the justice which the state
oaered 60 mete through its method of
arbitration? Suppose the strikers did
hove to set authority to arbitrate. how
did that relieve the fuel company from
responsibility for it's refusaI2 Could
the company have taken any more di-
rect means Of securing public faith in
fits good Intentions than by agreeing to
submit it's case to considerable by an
arbitration board2r
Again. Colonel Wall says: MY own
views as to the act Of the governor in
the premises are that he was entirely
too slow. That having had timely no.
tice of the approach of NitcheITs ennis /
saries and being fully advised of the
conditions under which only a strike
could De averted, his troops should have
met them at the state border and turned
them back or held them in confinement
beyond the confines Of the coal fields. I
AS to arbitration Of the demands Of the
strikers. my own view is that such a
proposition is rot and never can be in
free government even debatable, /
much less arbitrable. and at the outset
or our mutiny 7 announced that even
should both parties assent and request (
#. 7 would not sit in fts consideration. /
Would you2"
The answer IS very plain and easy.
Any man who has accepted appoint (
ment as a member Of the state board Of
arbitration would be compelled to sit i'm
such "a case. and IL Colonel Wall wiz
read chapter of the Revised Statutes
or Utah. under the heading Of Labor. .
he viii see that his refusal would be a
plain violation OF the law under which
he is holding office as member Of that
board The fact that the miners de- [
mands were unreasonable in Colonel
Wallis opinion, ought not TO have pre-
cIuded their consideration. on that
theory a judge might PREJUDICE any
case within his jurisdiction before a
hearing and without pleadings Of any
sort. The Herald most certainly would /
have acted if it had been I'm Colonel |
Walls position and 81 both parties had I
requested it.
The coloneIs declaration that the
governor ought TO have had "his |
troops meet the emissaries of Mitchell /
ana turn chem back or hold them In |
confinement. is little less than amaz-
tns. By what warrant could the gov
ernor turn men back at the states bor- /
der when they had committed no overt /
act2 how could he have them held in |
confinement No one of them had vio- /
lated any STATE or federal law, no one
OF them was subject 90 either civil or /
military action until ne had violated
she law. The governor might as prop
cry put Colonel wall in confinement for /
refusing TO act as arbitrator as he could /
the col0nels programme of arrests for /
the union emissaries. The detention Of /
MitcheTs agents would have been
quito as subversive Of civil rights /
as any OF the actions charged to De-
mol and his men; and il would have
been quite as dangerous to free insti- /
tutions.
The Herald stiu regrets that there
was no means OF compelling both par
ties to this case TO submit to arbltra- |
ton. It stin hopes there win be an ]