The labor argus. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1906-1915, 1906-11-15

nuch about the mines down bara
anu nave moi inQuired-are in betfsr
Sonaiton and safer than the mines
m PENNSYLVANIA and Ohio, and so far
as the mines are concerned in ~
Nalley-and LET The
mine inspectors here who have them
II eharSe deny II il l am stating an
uhtruthIl aver that the mines in
mat valley compare favorably and
!, .nthk can say that the conditions
~ oeteer thau the average of con-
ditions in Pennsylvania, Ohio. Indian,
or iiiinofs. do not speak for This
part OF the State, l speak for mis-
part or The State in u sense. but I dn
NOT Know so much about the safety
OF the mines here. and l protest
u I'll me report going ont to the
worlo that h mines In West Vir-
Stnia are not safe, when in fact thew
are sater in some regions than the
mines IN Pennsylvania, Ohio. Him
ois or Indiana. Ii they are NOT no
Sate generally as the mines there
. am surprised. l hope that it is not
true. Nobody has stated That n Co
rue but there is the 70
90 drawn from tho general trend or
me discussion here, namely, that we
nave not rs good conditions i'm tbis
STATE IN the mines as they have In
other states. and for tina reason
,Men.s miners have left
Nv tuot three SenrS
l thank you for the ent Va,
nave given me. and l must go.
MIR. WARNER:
wish to have mother opportun-
80 ~ say u low words in addition
TO my remarks on yesterday ~
seems to me that tho discussion has
reached the point where the question
Us 10 De settled why the men have lorr
nv otute' and l do not wish to bc
Understood. When l spoke In ro-
GARD 10 men leaving the State yester-
49, ~anu want 10 say to every hon
est mar In this meeting, and I no
ileve that we are all honest men hero
.ouas ana trying to be honest-iat
us not misunderstood one anotber
nor try TO misconstrue each other.
statements. l want to say to every
nan mere that my remarks In refer
ence to men leaving his Stnte wera
made sincerely and honestly. and sn.
the benefit OF the coal mine owners
us Wen as the miners, | simpIy In
10 call attention to that foct
pelieVihS tnat III anything could bc
done to Keep men from leaving the
State, and inducing men to come
, mo the state. that it would be for
ne dement, of the mine owners ns
wen as the miners. Now, then.
want to dlsabuse tho minds of nny.
Douy In regard to any remarks thnt
i MADE. or to avoid any such imnres-
SION that 1t Is Islander upon anybody
or upon any interest for u person 10
honestly speak in regard TO foc,a
that he knows. Let me saw tn Won
now, once and for all, so far as
am concerned, as one citizen. TINT
90 not ask this commission To lep-
isiate anything or recommend any
legislation in regard to men who have
,ele the state: Those who have left
inc SInTn md -
states need no Legislation at the
hands OF the Legislature of this
state or no action on the part OF
lhis commission in this State. hut
i 40 ASK. as | said yesterday, that
something be done in regard to tho
men who live in this State, and work
IN the mines. They do need some
protection. l saw in one OF the
morning papers, and it seems that
thls one paper in particular is CIV
en- TO misconstruing facts and mis-
representing men. unless we saw
something In favor of the reprehen-
slbie person that that paper must
paper went on to
ten or h recommendations that the
miners made 20 the commission, and
then said that William Warner, a
mine inspector. said that such n law
would be Il good thing for the State.
want to say to the gentlemen with
~ my HedTlnS tnat i am not
" necessary to endorse Il recommen-
dalton from coal miners, and ] am
not afraid In the face Of any body OF
men, to endorse n recommendation
Tor mine owners but / do wish to
be understood and quoted truthful
ly- l did not say that a law recon-
mended by the miners Yesterday
would be a good thing for the State.
Now, remember. gentlement, don't
misunderstood me at this point
either-I do not either say that that
law or any law recommended by the
miners would not be a good thing
lot the state. Why misconstrue
these remarks? Why misunderstood
one another? l want to be plain,
and ought to have been plainly un-
yesterday in what l stated
in my remarks. and today l wish 1t to
be understood that am in favor of
some protection. Now. for the rea-
son hat do not specify the protec-
ton, nor suggest the wording OF the
law Is that ] believe the honorable
body of the mine commission is able
to urge such a law, either endorse
as is recommended, or recon-
mend such a law as in their wisdom
they think should be enacted. / wish
TO say that 1t is not my intention to
re1iect upon mine owners who are
doing right. h are protecting the
men In their mines, and it is mys-
terry to me why men who are mine
owners snould fight against the es-
adjustment of a law asking other