Bisbee daily review., 1917-12-23

ginia without a strike" Defendant
 Green took part. IayOrlng the vlew O.
 MT. Lewis that strikes should be trea.-
 ed nationally instead of lOoaily. ,u
 course Of his remarks he said. 2 say
 10 you. gentlemen, one reason vh, |
 opposed the policy that was pursue-
 last year was because over in Ohio
 we were peculiarly situated We had
 West Virginia on the south and Penn
 sylvania on the east. and after four months of a strike is eastern Ohio we
 had reached the danger line. We felt
 keeuly the competition from West Vir-
 ginia. and during the suspension our
 miners in Ohio chafed under the ob- ject lesson they had. They saw West
 Virginia coal 20 by. trainIoad after
 train-lOad passing their doors. when
 they were on strike This coal sup
 piled the markets that they should
 have had. There is no diSCuising the fact. something must be done tO rem
 edy this condition Year after year Ohio has had to sS home and strike
 in some portion of the district 10 en-
 force the interstate agreement that
 was signed up here-... l confCss here and nov that the OveT5s helIl.ing sentiment in Ohio vas that seJ.le- ment by sections wOIiO not correct the conditions We Complained oL Nov. something must 0e aone. it Is ab-
 SOlutely necessary tO protect us against the competition that comes rom the un0Tsanized fields east Oi
 us" Mir Mitchell opposed the view of defendant Lewis. reiterating an opinion. repeatedly expressed before. that West Virginia and the other un- l organized fields. would not be thor
 Oughly organized except as the result of a successful strike but declaring that they will not be organized at all strike or no strike. unless we are able to support the men in those fields from the first Gay they lay down their tools
 ....... Now, l believe it is possible. indeed believe it is probable. that in the not distant future we will be able to inausurate a movement in | West Virginia and the other unorgan. ized fields that will involve them in a strike. and then We will expect you
 10 furnish the sinews of war. as you
 have done in the past. to keep these
 men in idleneSs."
 The discussion continued dUring three days. ana a, the eEG ot It the re- | port Of a c0mmJ-ee wHicA expressed ] disagreement with Nice Ere siden: Lewls' opposition Co sectional SeJde- mentS and recommended COL,DUa ! ton in the future Sf the same wise conservative bUsiaess-like policies | that had been pursued by PreliGen, Mitchell. was adopted by viva VOCe vOta
 The plain effect Of this action was l tS approve a policy which, as applied | 10 the concrete case. mlant t. 3t I : order to relieve the union min- rs O. Ohio. Indiana and Illinois from the competition of JEe cheaper product Oi ' the non-uniOn mines Oi West Vi -iui2 the West Virginia mines should be ! orsaniEed' bymesnS Of strikes local ! to West Virginia. the strike benefits tc be paid by assessments upon th5 union miners in the other States men ! mentioned. while they remained al work
 This coDy eDuOa was followed by au annual convention Sf SUb-DiStriC- 3 Q.
 District 6. held in the month Of 5-arch 1907. at which defendants Natkin- and Rankin were present as Pre- i5eni and Secretary of the SUb-DisJric.. De | fendant Lewis. as National Vice Pres ident. occupied the chair during Sev J eral Of the session. Defendant Leien
 ka was present as a delegate. and alsc | Thomas Hughes. who while named a, l,E s~, k- not served with process. Watkins and Rankin in their reports recon mended the complete unioniEati9n Oi the mines in the Panhandle counties with particular reference tS the Mitch
 man. the Glendale the Richland and two others; and as a result it was ' resolved that the Subdistrict officers 1 together with the District officers. bC authorized 10 take ID the work Of CT \ sanizing every mine in the Suh-dis
 trict as quickly as it can be done" l Evidently iu pursuance of tlif re | solution. defendants Green. Ze'enk2
 and Watkins. about July I. 1907. called
 at plaintiffs office and laid before its ! general manager. Mr. Koch. a propOSi | ton for the unioniZation Of tho mine ! He declined 70 consider it. but at theiI ! request laid it before plaintiffs bOard of directors. who rejected the p,OqoSl | tion. and the manager informed Greer | Of this. In one of the interviews EOCf | informed these defendants of the | terms Of plaintiffs working aereCment
 with it's employees to the effec' thai ! the mine was co he run on-uniC1 and | they were nOt to become members O
 the Union.
 ! About the same time. Mr. AcKin | ley. who was operating the RiChian1 mine nOn-union was interyIewc3 by
 the Union leaders. notified or tne rC solution adopted by the Sub-d'Stvicr ! convention. and. having asked that hi,
 mine be let alone. was met with tho
 threat that they would secure the sup
 port of his men. and that it he 6id no' ! recognize the Union they would ShU
 down his mine. In one ot tue inter | views that eusued he was told ths
 1t was their purpose to organize th,
 Glendale. the Hitcheman. the Rich
 land and some other mines that al | the Glendale theV had tventy-fOCr mcI
 who had joined the organization. 'au,
 that they had sixty men who had sign
 cd un or had agreed to 50iu tho o~
 Canization at Hitchuan. and that fhc,
 HH