The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-02-11
MINERS union SCORED
ADDRESS IN BEHALF OF NONUNION
ANTHRACITE DIGGERS.
Counsel for Coal Companies Also
Bitter Against John Mitchell
and His Organization.

PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 1O.-The United
Mine Workers of America, as an organiza-
ton. was severely scored to-day by counsel
before the anthracite coal commission. The
nonunion men, through their attorney.
John Il. Lenahan, presented their side of
the controversy and demanded considera-
ton at the hands of the commission, claim
ing the legal right to earn a livelihood as
they might elect without the consent or
dictation of the union. During his pre-
sentation of the case Mr.. Lenahan de-
nounced the union as a fomenter of crime
and anarchy. The main feature of his ar
gument was the claim that the union had
no legal or moral right to coerce miners
into membership to arrogate to itself
the authority to fix the wages of mine
workers.
I'm the eyes of the law no distinction can
exist between union and nonunion labor
ers," he said. "They simply are fellow
servants of common employer. The ma
jority may make such secret agreements
among themselves as they please, but such
agreements cannot affect the rights of the
minority, no matter how small it may be-
There can be no such thing as the major
mon employment. 1t is the admitted right
of a majority Of stockholders in a corpora
ton to dictate the policy of the company,
even though contrary to the wishes of some
stockholders who thereby might suffer loss.
But all the servants of one master remain
individuals under our law and yield nothing
of their rights to majority of their CO.
employees. The union presents as one of it's
essential claims before this commission a
demand that the mine owners shall accept
the union as a representative of the miners
and fix the rights of both nonunion and
union miners by conceding its demands. We
it be not conceded by the commission with
out a distinct and deliberate violation of
law"
James II. Torrey. counsel for the Della
ware az Hudson Company, claimed that the
question of recognition of the unicn was
not an issue before the commission, but he
devoted considerable time to consideration
of that demand. He asserted that violence
and intimidation were agencies selected for
the promotion of the purposes of the mine
workers. Regarding the demand for an
evidence showed that for various reasons
the breakers did not average more than
eight hours day. so that the physical
effects or long hours were not felt.
Major Everett Warren, counsel for the
Hillside Coal and Iron Company and the
Pennsylvania Coal Company, answered the
demands of the miners in detail and de-
clared the socialistic theories of the union
or some of its leaders, to be responsible for
unreasonable claims. In conclusion he said
Whatever may be the motive on the part
of the union, the evidence is Overwhelming
that the result is restriction on the part
of the industrious miner limiting the
amount of work and the consequent wages
shriveling his powers and reducing him to
the dead level OF his lazy and indifferent
associate. This cannot he blotted out from
| the record. 1t appears in the testimony OF
every company and every employer of labor
| in the region. Socialism proposes to estab-
| lish an equality among unequal men. by re-
ducing them to the dead level of this posi-.
| BILE majority. Instead of allowing every
| one to determine for himself what he wants
| TO do il is to be done for him. That is
nothing but slavery. What is the theory OF
| the union IL 1t is not this? | do not dis
| pute the right of men to organize and
| hold no brief against organized labor. The
methods OF the United Mine Workers how
| ever. appear TO be exquisitely adapted to de-
grade intelligent labor, TO paralyze honest
| industry, TO crush Spirit. hope and ambi
| ton"