Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-02-10
EQUALITY OF RIGHTS
Between the Union and Nom
Union Workmen.
DEFINED BY LENAHAN
CAN BE NO DISTINCTION. SAYS
COUNSEL FOR LATTER.
President Baer of Reading Company
an Attentive Listener at To-
days Proceedings.
DEFINED BY LENAHAN

PHILADELPHIA, February 10-Presf-
dent Baer of the Reading company was an
attentive listener to the arguments pre-
sented today before the anthracite coal
strike commission.
The ron-union miners, through Attorney
John T. Lenahan of Wilkesbarre, expressed
their disapproval of the principles and prac-
tees of the United Mine Workers.
Mr. Lenahan in his argument, presented
three propositions. He submitted that the
commission must find the United Mine
Workers responsible for the violence and
other unla acts which deprived the
non-unon miners of their lawful right to
work; that all authorities agree that the
law guarantees to every man the right TO
work. where, when. and for whom he
pleases, and that nothing could justify a
finding by the conm'ss ion that non-union
miners must deal with their employers
through the medium of the union. be
subject in the slightest degree to the con-
troll or dictation of the union.
Mr.. Lenahan's Argument.
After presenting these propositions, Mr..
Lenahan said, in part:
'It follows as a necessary conclusion
from admitting the principle that non-unon
miners must be permitted to work without
Wlul interference lioIl ltlicN WI n
men, that they must not be made to deal
with their employers through the medium
of the union.
"In the eyes of the law no distinction
exist between union and non-union iaborIrs
They simply are fellow servants of cam
mon employer The majority may make
such secret agreements among themselves
as they please. But such agreements cam
not affect the rights of the minority. no
fto,. h.,yx- ,aal he On n "a
no such thing the majority rule among
felIow-workmen in common employment
1t is the admitted right of ma joriiy Of
stockholders in a corporation to dictate the
policy of the company, even though con-
trary to the wishes of some stockholders
who thereby might suffer loss. But all
the servants Of one master remain ndivid-
uals under our law and yield nothing of
their rights to majority of their co-enl-
ployes.
Diametrical Differences.
''Tow then could it be possible for this
commission to admit the right of the United
Mine Workers to contract on behalf Of nom
union miners with common employer?
If It were possible. is it likely that nom
union miners would receive fair treatment
at the hands of those embittered by preju-
dice and anxious to monopolize all the
positions that they hold?
LAS is well known. there diamet1:cal
differences or opinion on many SUBJECTS
apparently affecting their common inter-
ests between union and nom union men IN
all occupations.
1.-The rules of trades unions are framed
on the principle not merely of dictation by
the majority to the minority among fellow
employees of one employer, but of such die
tation by the majority of all workmen
gagged in particular occupation.
1.-The freedom of the individual to work
only according to the dictates of his own
interests are made subservient to the sup
posed good Of the greatest number. We
agree that the law does not prohibit sucn
combinations Of rules when voluntarily ac-
copied. What we deny is that any work.
man can be coerced into accepting them.
Deprived Of Liberty Of Action.
when this is done directly or Indirectly
he is deprived of that liberty of action
which the law guarantees to him. The
Union presents as one Of its essential claims
before this commission a demand that the
mine owners shall accept the union as the
representative of the miners and fix the
rights of both union and uon-union miners
by conceding its demands.
1--WE deny this right and earnestly pro-
test that it could not be conceded by the
commission without a distinct and DELHI
crate violation of law"
Torrey Speaks for Operators.
James H. Torrey OF Scranton. counsel for
the Delaware and Hudson Company, argued
the case of that corporation against the de-
mands of the miners. He paid particular at
tention to the fourth demand of the union
for trade agreement.
The operators, he said, opposed to
this method because they believed they
should be permitted to conduct their bust
ness in their own way. and because the
United Mine Workers Of America is an ire
sponsible organization.
They object also to an organization COM
posed partly Of soft coal miners attempting
to control the anthracite industry Mr.
Torrey was still speaking when the commits
sion took a recess.