Waterbury Democrat., 1903-02-10
PRESIDENT BAER WAS THERE.
An Attentive Listener to Argu-A ment of Non- Union Attorney.

Counsel Lenahan Says Commission Should Find Mine Workers Respon- sible for the Violence He Says There is no Law that Compels Non Union Miners to Deal With Employ CTS Through the Union.
 Philadelphia, Feb 1O- Presidenk
 Baer. the Reading Go was an atten- tive listener to the arguments presents ed to-day before the anthracite coal strike commission. The non-union | miners, through Attorney John T. Lenx
 ahan of Wilkesbarre, expressed theix disappEOval of the principles and prae l tices of the United Mine Workers.
 -Mr Lenahan, ill his argument, pre- I sented three propositions. He sabmit- l ted that the commission must find the United Mine Workers responsible for l 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 guarall- | tees to every man the right to work, l Wnere when and for whom he pleases,
 and that nothing could justify hnd- ing 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 fhes
 control or dictation of the union.
 1 After presenting these propositions MT Lenahan said in part: Tt follows l as a necessary conclusion from af1nif-s | ting the principle that non-lmion miners
 must be permitted to work without liIl-E
 lawful interference from fellow work
 men that they must not be made to-
 deal with their employers through the
 medium of the union. Tn the eyes of 1 the law no distinction can exist be- 1 tween union and non-union 1aborers- l They simply are fellow servants of a. common employer. The maj0rity may l make such secret agreements among l themselves as they please. But such
 agreements cannot affect the rights ofs \ the minority, no matter how small it may be. There can be no such thing as the majority rule among fsiIow worklnen in common employment It l is the admitted right of majority of l stockholders in corporat ton to dictate the policy of the company. even thou9l1 l contrary to the wishes of some stock holders who thereby might suffer loss. l But all the servants of one master re~ l main individuals under our law ar1d 4 yield nothing of their nights to ma 1 jority of their co-employes.
 ] 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 n common employer? If it were possi-
 ble, is it likely that non-union miners
 would receive fair treatment at the
 hands of those embittered by prejudice and anxious to monopoIize all the p0si- lions that they hold? As is we'll known there are diadnetrical differences of
 opinion on many subjects apparently
 affecting their common interests be- l tween union and non -union men in all occupations. The rules of trades l unions are framed on the principle not l merely of dictation by the majority to l the minority among fellow employees of one employer, but of such dictation ! by the majority of all wOrkmen era-
 gagged in a particular occupation
 sThe freedom of the individual t0 ] work only according to tllat dictates of his own interests are made subservi-
 ent to the supposed good of the greatest
 number. We agree that the law does
 not prohibit such combinations or rules
 when voluntarily accepted What we
 deny is that any workman can be CO.,
 creed into accepting them. When this
 is done directly or indirectly he is dex I prived of that liberty of action which
 the law guarantees to him. The union
 presents one of it's essential claims be-
 fore this commission, a demand thai
 the nine owners shall accept the union
 as the representative of the miners,
 and fix the rights both of union and
 non-umion miners by conceding it's de
 mands. We deny this right and earnx
 estly protest that it could not be conz|
 ceded by the commission without a dis.
 tinct and deliberate violation of law ''