Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-02-10
EQUALITY OF RIGHTS
Between the Union and Non
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.-Presi-
dent Baer Of the Reading company was an
attentive listener to the arguments pre-
sented today before the anthracite coal
strike commission.
The non-union miners through Attorney
John T. Lenahan Of Wilkesbarre, expressed
their Hsapproval Of the principles and prac-
tices 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 unlawful acts which deprived the
non-union 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
finding by the commission that non-union
miners must deal with their employers
through the medium Of the union, or 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 necessary conclusion
from admitting the principle that non-union
miners must be permitted to work without
unlawful interference from fellow work
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 can
exist between union and non-union laborers
They simply are fellow-servants Of COM
mon employer. The majority may make
such secret agreements among themselves
as they please. But such agreements can
not affect the rights of the minority, no
matter how small 1t may be. There can be
no such thing the majority rule among
felloW-workmen in a common employment
1t Is the admitted right of majority Of
stockholders in 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 individ-
uals under our law and yield nothing Of
their rights to a majority Of their co-em-
ployes.
Diametrical Differences.
"How. then, could it be possible for this
commission to admit the right of the United
Mine Workers to contract on behalf of non
union miners with a common employer?
If II were possible. is 1t likely that nom
union miners would receive fair treatment
at the hands of those embittered by pre;u-
dice and anxious to monopoiZe all The
positions that they hold?
"As Is we'll known, there are diamet /: cal
ulHeIenceS OI opinion on many SUBJECTS
appa rently affecting their common inter-
ests between union and non-union men In
all occupations.
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 en-
gagged in a 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 such
combinations Of rules when voluntarily ac-
cepted. 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 it's 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 nom union miners
by conceding it's demands.
1--WE deny this right and earnestly pro-
test that it could not be conceded by the
commission without a distinct and deIib-
crate violation of law