The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1913-04-18

=, W
Organizations
The contention Of the coal operators
10 that the United Mine Workers of
America II an organization inimical 20
the best interests OF the coal industry
OF West virginia and fui on a,-
count OF being IN restraint of trade and
from the fact that there g. an agree
ment between the coal operators OF Pen
n~sylvania- ONTO. Illinois and Indiana.
and the United Min" Workers OF Amer
ica-the states mentioned being COM
own state. As TO the truth OF this de-
isration % Is not for me- 10 decide. The
case Of the Hitrnman coal 4 COX" COM
Pany vs.. John Mitchell and others. tried
by Judge DAYTON ~ IN. Federal Court
or the northern District of West VIZ
Hin'a. urniSn es ON interesting in
formation that ~ ~ claimed would tend
% hear out the statements made by the
operators relative TO this matter.
The following Is a quotation from a
IN the KanRwha coal field north ~ tie
hanawha river. which operates under
The present strike - due to "A viola
ton OF ne contract made between the
United Mine Workers and certain coal
workers accured IN" operators thar q
theN would sign M th. scale. no burdens
would he placed upon thos" signing the
scale that would prevent them from
competing with m" nuu-in'on miners
In tho local fields. guaranteeing 60 pro
Ne 81 ana fhye tnssm a scai" nat would
NhhN Nv AfNNlAA ne AFlf
In a position 10 cope with the non-uuion
mines In every particular.
I'll present strik" was brought
about BY "a violation OF ~. above men.
TONED promise on the part II the min.
spring were a part or III" union opera.
Tors organization. and they broke away
from tho organization and refused 20
sign mp. the result OF a.. miners de-
when the operators In Pair. creek had
heen losing money every wear for .trh,
years and Were then paving IN. miners
much more than wac paid m non-uniou
I was Informed by those In cor,ro,
supervising the Paint creek mine
rho union thar they were r.senfinF h.
refusing 10 sign up. hut that IL was IA.
70 the fact that the scale asked for D.,
the United Min" Workers was excessive.
ana That thu operators could not con.
t,nnr their mines under such q scale
annually losing money FOR "A good num-.
ber ~ years past.
Again. I have another quotation from
an operator located in the union aNld
north OF IN" Kauawhs river. stating tn,
IRE miners officials agreed most sol.
emnly with "a" operators signing ut
with th"m that they would make ~
more favorable contracts w..h ans nh.
operators IN this district. but violated
the agreement hy making a much nor.
favorable contract with the Four state.
Coal COMPANY. ~ Dorothy. on coal rtVer
Further quotation from "a anton up-r-
ator
II ~ an unfair ard ur-easo-ahl
proposition for IN" United Mine Worker.
70 attempt - fprC- union contracts
higher wages, rules ami surlttar-
which Increase The cost ~ coal upuu the
operators IA = limited section " ID.
LIONS obtain Over tho enti-. state r,.
mis- necessarily results IN tho are-.t tor
working union cout-uc's heinr u-abic >,
take ~compe'itive business without LOSING
money
Further quotation.
There can Zee no FDn mu-lfv Of inter
est between the miners and op.rr-sr-
Of West Virginia and tho United N,r.
Workers for the reason 'h1r thar o..
tererts are directly opposed to .4ru
Other West NirE min coal. 80 D.. mark.
Cd NUS pass through and tHg. 20.
business Of tho coal operqfs-e .-l
take m. business 81 tho coal ore-o.1r-