Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1915-04-24

tiun ~ this mining district. We have been
opposed BY some ~ our competitive opera
tor. whose notions al fairness are Ia our
opinion somewhat lop-dcd. but our position
among them was such that We have been
able "a inaugnratc and carry ont these
changes without serious criticism un the
part Of these competitors. Today. they are
pattiug IL on our backs.
"Wc studied the eight hour problem.
which Ne knew would rome AZ IN the form
at bills IN the legislature and would b.
pushed through by agitator-. - We antici-
Iatcd these mattcr- and experiments with
eight hnur labor. k Generally speaking.
Ne found that working our mines eight
hours saved H. III overhead expenses and
in other ways enough 10 offset amy los
that might come from AN eight instead OF
nine or ten hour duy Ia many ~ our mines.
After this had been thoroughly settled W
our minds. We established am eight hour
day for all coal miner. complying with
union rules IN that respect. but oprraiin"
a- non union mines"
The letter goes WI IN relate that tho
semi monthly pay day wu~ %inauguratcd
after the men of one mime told their super
iutcndent that tins reform would be- Il
great convenience 10 them. investigation
showed. Mr.. Bowers wrote. that III They
paid twice Il month at one mine They would
have To- pay 1T all their mines but this wa~
done Every much 10 the delight uf our en-
pluyc~-wholly unsolicited. a- yuu zee. but
N was lone u- u matter Of policy. untIci-
puting that these questions might BE- raised
sooner or later. a. well n because of our
willingness 10 accommodate our employees.
even III some extra cost a. use"
Mr.. Bowers told ~ the attempts NJ the
company a. persuade the men "a select
their own check wciehmcn. lie said that
the miners were urged a. 10 this and
added: $50 far a~ snow not \ single
man was selected.
The accusation that miners were forced
To trade al the company stores was denied
by Mr.. Bowers. he argued that all en-
ployc~ were welcome ~ trade any where
they wished. "a~ the money was their
own He said that q careful canvass Of
al the company camps failed TO find -
single ease of di~~uti~factio Of this ac-
count"
1.-THE above covers every demand being
l,adc now by the agitator~," related the
letter, with he exception oi recognition
~ the union and 4 trumpcd ~ demand for
a 10 per cent advance which " entirely
huncohnbc a. the average wages at our
men are higher than Ia amy other soft coal
mining section We know eli. This j. in
cludcd ia their demands ~ fool the public
and a. inspire oar mines ID unite will the
union.
THE main question and in fact the only
matter between the lsiicd Mine Workers
1T America aud the Colorado Fuel a Iron
company. II recognition vi the union. which
we fatty refuse to DO, or even meet with
those asitator> To discus, or take up TIN,
question directly or indirectly"
Mr.. Bowers referred 10 the labor trou-
ble~ III Northern Colorado which ~ blamed
upon Oppressive" rules of the union and
said hat there were many objections To-
union labor ia southern Colorado.
lone l. the quality ~ the output under
union domination. which l. Inferior said
the letter. 1T j. impossible to discharge
incompetent labor without the matter being
brought up for investigation IN officials Of
the union both III and ont III the state: and
numerous requirements that practically
take away the mines from the control Of
the owners and place them in the hands of
these. IN many eases di~reputablc agitatorS.
socialists aud anarchists.
.ln canva~sIng our numerous mines We
find practically all of our miners opposed
To a strike or any disturbance in the rela-