The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-02-10
BAER LISTENED.
Attorney of Nom Union Miners
Sums Up Their Case.

Philadelphia, Feb. 10--President Baer
Of the Reading company was an atten-
tive listener to the arguments presented
today before the anthracite strike COM
mission. The non-union miners. through
Attorney Joh T. Lenahan, OF Wilkes
barre. expressed their disapprOval of
the principles Of the United Mine Work
erE-
Mr.. Lenahan in his argument present
ed three propositions. He submitted
that the commission must n the
United Mine Workers responsible fol-
the violence and other unlawful acts
which deprived b nOn-uniOn miners
Of their lawful right to work; that all
authorities agree that the law guarn-
tees to every man the right to work,
and that nothing could justify a finding
OF the commission that ~nOn-union
miners must deal with their employers
through the medium of the union or
De SUBJECTED IN the slightest degree to
the control or dictation Of the union.
After presenting these propositions.
Mr.. Lenahan said in part.
1t follows as a necessary conclusion
from admitting the principle that nom
union miners u be permitted to work
without unlawful interference from
fellow Workmen 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
n non-uniOn laborers. They
simply are fellow servants Of a
common 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 it
may be. There can be no such Trims as
the majority rule among fellow work
men in a common employment. 1t is
the admitted right of a majority of
stockholders in a corporation to dictate
the policy of the company. even though
contrary to the wishes of some stock
holders who may thereby suffer loss.
But all the servants of one master re-
main individuals under law and yield
nothing of their rights to a majority
of their co-emplOyes.
How then could it be possible for
TINS commission to admit the right of
the United Mine Workers to contract on
Dehalf OF nonuniOn employees with a
common employer? If it were possible
1t IS likely that n%Onunion miners would
receive fair treatment at he hands of
these embittered by prejudice and anx-
lous to m~onopolize all the position they
hoIdE As is well known there are dia-
metrical differences of opinion on many
subjects apparently affecting their CONF
mon interests between union n 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
NF-O-N5 " ~ 0AIQ4OJCAs DuL OF SQCn
dictation by the majority of all work
men engaged in a particular occupa-
ton.
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 or rules when voluntarily ac-
cepted. What we deny is that any work
man can be coerced into accepting them.
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
representatives of the miners and fix the
standing of both union and non-union
miners by conceding its demands. We de-
ny the right and earnestly protest that it
De not conceded by the commission with
the law"