New-York tribune., 1903-02-12
INDEPENDENTS HEARD,
attorneys Hold Mitchell Responsible
for LazcleSsnfss.


orators to-day continued TO arraign the Miners
Union in their arguments before the Strike
Commission. The independent operators or the
Lehigh, the Wyoming and the LackaWanna re
gions held the attention of the commissioners
for the greater part of the day, which ended
with the presentation Of the Reading company
argument by Simon T. Wolyerton the COM
pany'a chief counsel.
In nearly every case the attorneys charged
President Mitchell with responsibility for the
lawlessness in the coal regions during the strike,
and the union was characterized as an irrespon-
eibIe organiza ton whose members were beyond
the control Of the leaders, Mr. Wolverton
strongly urged the Incorporation Of the union
and charged that it was uaf1t to control the
anthracite industry because boys were num-
bered among its members.
Samuel Dickson argued the case Of g. r. Mar
kIe &, Co. and other independent operators in
the Lehigh region. He defended the attitude
of the Marke company, saying that the firm
was justified in the stand it took against its
men when the strike was declared off because
it had not been q party TO the correspondence
resulting in the appointment Of the commission
Francis / GoWen, for the Lchigh Valley Coal
Company. suggested that the commission recon-
mend the esta abshment of a shift consisting OF a
certain number of cars to constitute day work
the men able 10 do the amount Of work required
to receive an increase in wages He devoted his
time principally to the wage question
Nj. Gowen said, in part:
The first question that ne are asked 10 consider
is the demand that Il mad tor an increase CT
mel2 ana that demand IS that . per cent shall
he sdded II some My to to- TIER eaTnEE mat te
ar @ Is 10 eternlife fhem with reference to the
annual earnings which they ar enabled 70 make.
1t is not unfair to judge the palruHs case mere
94eed e And wben s We ma @ that their own Witnesses
testify to condition of affairs which resulted IN
the miners earning an sverage or from Stgg 70 S+g,
year, are we not justified IN concuGlng mat men
an increase Of % per cent on earnings OF that
hgure2 Take the medium between those ngures,
cent which is now asked and you will fnd IN that
year. And get taking the figures which the Lehigh
VALLEY Goa! company mas aeG WIN tas n m thdi
miners. who worked continuously throughout the
year. was $568.
Ira H Burns of Scranton. who followed Mr.
Gowen. argued mainly the right Of the ind-
vidual to control his own labor. He said in part
Whether a man shall receive 81 or 81 for a day
work and whether he snail work eight hours or
ten hours ara matters OF policy and eXpedlency on
TG HbaGeeg eH by g b2 Wheer man Shall
be allowed TO earn his daily bread in his own way.
subject only to the laws OF the land Is principe
as old as the creation and as eternal as the ever
In reality the contest is between the American
people on one side and the union miners on me
people may have coal except upon such terms as
the union may prescribe
showing any basis for . demand for increase q
OF underpay and cverwork in any avocatiQn IS the
fact that the workers themselyes gradually 5eage o
the contrary. Quite the reverse.
Samuel Dickson. in preserving the argument for
the independent operators Of the Lehigh region.
said in part:
Where trade union has been M [9Tmed by n men
hands OF the body of employees medlate!y con
cerned. they constitute a natural party 10 any
paid and SO long as they are employed they stand
in contracural relation 10 their enployer Without
ployes may a so act through committee or any
represent them. This is natural and n2rma3I Re re-
lation and the representatives of p9th sides know
both SIDES @ Is confined to the questions which
sdPase M3PdT oeanIIa6n IS COMPOSED of men in the
proportion Of three. out Of four belonging 10 a
miles distant, having ~ common or identieal IN
terest eLceIt as The men IN ] me 1rme5 ot s!oTI
bituminous anthracite miners Of the United
As has been often pointed out. trade union NAV
sometimes secure an advance in wages sooner or
TO Themselves. 2ut they can make no change in the
Essential conditions Of every industry
Simon F Wolverton expressed opposition TO
the union because the bituminous representa-
ton on the national board is so much greater
than the anthracite representation. He said in
part
: man can do nothing, without the consent of
,ba orga uiZed responsible. uuincorpcra ted body
Is il anv wonder the operators do not recognize IL
Tba biruminous miners ought 70 be trust ed
1,ith control Of the anthracite production We
56n1 oopose labor unions, hut boyS under sixteen
vears II age are in partial control of the miners
,nion and according to their testimony. the
union is not a responsible organization John
Niitchei was opposed 20 the recent strike. bur
the convention declared IL. Mitchell advised
against violence. but there was violence. He
cannot control the members Of the union.
There reason why the United Mine
Workers should he chartered TIE basic priu-
ciple the orgauizs ton is collective bargaining
nut they do not want collective responsibility.
There outrages perpetrated during the strike
The members Of the union violated the law. II
ts works unlawful. then the organization is
unlawful
strike was a smart step taken by Mitchell To com
Del the operators 10 agree to one Of the most
arlt m atNhs Of mineIE u