Denver labor bulletin., 1917-02-24

mission was not unacceptable to the
union, and when the strike was set
tied, it was settled exactly on the
terms laid down by the commission,
The commission declared for an eight
hour day. Does anyone say that this
was unacceptable to the union?
lhrd: You state that l forgot to
state that thirteen workmen were i'm
prisoned in the county ia.l at Lead
VILE for three days "under the com
mission law" l am glad this state
ment was made, because it is fiat
mlsstatement of fact, and had been
made several times, and now is the
time to stop it. 1t was made on the
floor of the State Labor convention Of
Colorado Springs, and / there chal-
lenged it, and nobody denied what |
there stated about the facts. Now for
the facts: The men were charged
with violating the anti-picketing law,
they were never charged with any
offense under the commission law:
they were arrested and imprisoned be-
fore the commission reached Leadville
and were released at the personal re-
quest and application of the commits
sion itself
You state that the commission has
established minimum wage for wom-
en- in Colorado of not less than s8,33
per week. | think you have misled
unconsciously. and not wilfully in this
matter, and merely wish to correct
you. In the biscuit case the commits
sion did not pass upon minimum
wages specifically, but did say that no
woman in that industry in the stage
which the business had reached should
receive less than Sc per week. In the
case of the Denver Mattresses Union
the commission found for a SO a week
wage for the women mattresses of
Denver, and in that decision the COM
mission laid down the principle that
the minimum wage for women in Dem
yer ought not to be less than SS.33
per week
You state that when I say that the
commission has declared for an eight
hour day that my statement Clearly
falls in the class of wilful misrepre-
sentation."
One other Instance, and that is the
case of the Denver mailers. 1t is first
SAID that "after sixteen months of in
vestlgation and procrastination" the
commission decided the case This is
misstatement which has been hooked
around Denver long enough, and / am
going to correct it right now. The
case was brought before the commits
sion late in July, and the decision was
rendered in December, so that at the
very most the commission did not have
the case before it but five months in
stead of sixteen months. The demands
were made sixteen months before the
award on the demands were made,
but the newspaper employers and the
commission was asked not to assume
Jurisdiction until July, 1916. l quite
agree with anyone who says that five
months, was too long; did not favor
tins delay, and you may recall that
! dlssented in this case in vigorous
fashion. Would The Bulletin print
my dissenting opinion? The fact that
the mailers later got an increase from
the newspapers direct proves that my
dissenting opinion was right.
This covers al the alleged misstate-
ment of fact which are given in the
said editorial. I challenge anyone to
dispute any fact / have stated. / have
taken no part in the controversy be
fore the legislature, but / will not
stand for misrepresentations made of
the commission or my position here
individually, and / am also going to
assume that ! will be given an oppor-
tunity to have this letter published
in The Bulletin next week. am firm
ly convinced that the industrial law is
of great value to labor, capital and
the public alike. If anyone can show
me where this law has injured labor
| will gladly yield the point, but until
l can be shown that fact / stand by
my original position, and believe the
day will come when labor will favor
an industrial commission in every
state in the union.
Very truly yours,