The Sentinel=record., 1914-11-08

the one with whom the contract was made, may nevertheless hesitate to break it when the breach of faith must be Haunted in the face of the nation 1t seems that the operators should have taken tnis into consideration and not have permitted their distrust to oyerrule the judgment of others.
 t3.D That the truce would be but a palliative measure is true. Can more, if indeed as mucn, be truly said of the policy of the mine oper> ators? If a fundamental remedy is wanted, the operators have never let such wish be known Would they actually like to consider one?
 4) That objection sounds queer. The number of these men is given as $500. The number of men who struck, if the operators figures at the time of the strike be accepted, was not equal 10 that. According to John D. Rockefel CT, Jr., less than ten per cent of his miners were union men. The proposed agreement provides for a majority vote to elect a grievance committee
 o5) Considering that the proposi- ton came from the head of the United States government this objection does not seem to come from the proper quarter to require considera- ton.
 (6D "Tne preservation of law and order, without constant presence of an armed force was one of the ob- jects of the proposed plan The re- jectHu of it seems 10 endanger rather than help such preservation As to the alleged constitutional right mentioned, it does not exist. The very system under which these mine owners hold their mines is a denia of the right of every landless man 10 work at all, 10 say nothing of ''waen, where, for whom and upon such terms as he sees fit"
 t1) This sounds inconsistent with he claim of constitutional right of every man to work when. where, for whom and upon sucn terms as he secs fit"
 (S) Since the grievance commit. tees were to be elected by majority vote and present employees, according to all previous statements of owners would be in the majority and are well satisfied with conditions prevailing in the mines, the objection appears unreasonable.
 tS. That point is wei taken. But it had better not be insisted upon. since it might be followed to it's logic. al conclusion. It may lead to dis cussion of the ntolerable power held by the mine owners. and, admitting the force of the objection against state control, the only other alterna- rive 10 he considered must be aboli- tion of the owners hold on the mines. It involves discussion of the functions of the government and fundamental rights of property. It eads 10 ob- jections to the exercise of the gov. ernmental power under which the mine owners have secured control of Colorado's natural resources. The owners here invoke a principle dan- gerous 10 their monopolistic inter- ests.
 Go) Picketing was not the only act included in this qualified pr0hibi- ticn Other acts mentioned were parading," "colonizing," and mass campaigning none of which is pre- sumably prohibited by law To throw out the waole paragraph because the qualification does not specifically omit the act forbidden by law, has a l the appearance of qujbbling. If the state can not enforce it's anu-picket- ing law, the matter will not be rene died by refusal of a private corpor- ation to enter into this agreement. If it can. the corporations solicitude is uncalled for
 A reason for refusal that would nave put the mine owners in a more creditable position would have been something like the following:
 The land on which our mines are located is legally ours We have a legal right to employ or refuse 10 em ploy whom we please You can not deprive us of this power without de- stroying our right to use this land or withhold it from use. Until the government is prepared to do this W see no reason for catering 10 public opinion.
 While not respectful in form as the reply actually given such an answer would at least nave the merit of stating the situation as it actually is.
 -O-----