The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-01-29
LAWYER DARR0w'S REQUEST
MINERS, HE CONTENDER, HAVE
SAME RIGHTS AS OPERATORS.
Chairman Gray Forced to Admit the
Fairness of the Proposition Sub
mifted by Counsel.

before the anthracite coal strike commits
sion to-day. The matter was brought up
by Attorney Darrow, counsel for the
miners, who requested the commission to
summon the presidents of the coal carrying
railroads as witnesses. The demand re-
suited in long discussion between Chair
man Gray. Lawyer Dickson. counsel for the
independent operators, and Mr.. barrow
Chairman Gray said the committee would
consider the matter of calling the presi-
dents to the witness stand. Counsel for the
miners also announced that he had re-
ceived numerous letters from large oper-
ators and Governors of States in the
bituminous coal region and desired to have
some representatives of those districts APP
pear before the commission to give informa-
ton concerning the wage disagreements. If
this could not be done the miners union
would like to have the letters read before
the commission. The chairman said the
subject was at present being held under ad-
visement by the commission.
In asking the commission to request the
attendance of coal road presidents, Mr..
barrow said: There has been evidence
offered here on the part Of the operators
for the purpose of showing that the miners
have limited production in the past year.
We believe the fact to be that the coal
roads have placed limit production
for years. So long as they make the charge
to this commission for the purpose of in
iuencing its decision, want them to bring
into court for our examination the pres-
dents Of the roads so that We may find out
the situation"
do you mean to charge or express the
belief" said Chairman Gray. that there
has been limitation by the presidents Of
q 9TH fhov Iir.ff ff>r,
that the market and demand of the market
create? OF course there is a natural lim-
tation. Apart from the interests of the
operators and the miners it would be a
most lafnentable waste to the country to
keep on mining coal for which there was no
demand.
Continuing. the chairman said the de-
post of hard coal should be conserved for
the benefit of those who come after this
generation and wasteful, competitive out
put was a serious thing. He said he did
not know but that, in some crude way, the
consolidation of those interests had tended
to a more economic management of this
storehouse that Providence has given us in
this region
Mr.. barrow said in reply: "I do not see
that anybody could intelligently consider
this case without considering that question.
that they have been restricting the output.
when 1t has been done by somebody else. If
the operator has the right to conserve the
coal fields has the mine worker, and
he has the same right to conserve himself
and his family and those who are to come
after him as has the mine operator. For
sonable limitation of work or production
was bad thing, but l do claim that it
is unfair to charge us with a limitation
of production over a series of years, and
say the miners do not earn money because
they are lazy and have been limiting the
supply, when in fact the operators have
done it."
1.-THE only question 1 have In adverse
| criticism said Chairman Gray, lis this:
Take contract miner. He can limit his
| own hours Of labor. The question is wheth-
| five hours should put an inhibition upon
| the man who wants to work more hours -
Under our present theory regarding the
rights of property responded Mr.. OAR
row, where a man has a right to own a
| coal mine he has perfect right to work
twenty-four hours day. with all the
men he sees fit. Now. the other operators
| come in, and because they own railroads
| or because they are stronger they say: No.
| you can mine coal only three days week.
or eight hours a day or whatever it is.
| the miners or by the operators"
Here Mr.. Dickson arose and said that as
he understood it the position of the oper--
| ators was that during the year 1901 and
down to the strike, either through some
| concerted action or fact. the output of coal
was restricted and limited so that in reality
It was impossible to I'LL the storage places.
| All OF the companies he said, of late years
| had been going to large expense to store
coal at their terminal points The coming
| of the strike was foreseen, and Ii was the
| effort on the part Of the companies to get
the coal in advance, but they did not sue
coed in doing so. 1.-THE great difficulty In
the control of the anthracite trade" con-
| tinued Mr.. Dickson, lis that the market
| will not take 1T regularly and equally
| throughout the year. The whole question
| is. therefore, that the companies feel that
| during 1901 the men have not been willing
TO take advantage Of all the facilities that
were offered Them
Chairman Gray expressed the opinion
that IL the operators charged a restriction
| TO the disadvantage of the public upon the
miners, the latter should be allowed to
show that it was not themselves so much
| as the operators.
Assuming that the question is strictly
| between the operators and the miners"
| said Mr. Darrow, have the operators any
| more right to say to the miners. You shall
not restrict the number of cars you load
| than the miners have TO say to the opera
| tors. We will load only six cars?'"
Chairman Gray said the proposition was
| the same.
Then" said Mr. barrow, 'has one oper-
ator the right to say it to another?"
mo. sir I don't think he has," replied
| the chairman. He said also that he did
not believe the commission had given the
| question OF restriction any serious thought
There has not been any conclusive evidence
/ that concerted or systematic restriction has
existed.
| Mr.. barrow then asked that the commits
| sion request. Baer, Harris. Thomas and
| Truesdale to testify concerning the cues
| ton under discussion.
All the witnesses called to-day were ex-
amined by counsel for the miners with a
/ view to eliciting information concerning
the alleged restriction of coal production.