Bisbee daily review., 1917-12-23

During this strike plaintiff was sub
 jected to heavy losses and extraordin- ary expenses with respect to its busi- ness, of the same kind that had befal-
 len il during the previous strikes.
 About the first of June a self-ap- [ pointed committee of employees called
 upon plaintiffs president, stated in substance that they could not remain | longer on strike because they were , not receiving benefits from the Union.
 and asked upon what terms they could return to work. They were told that they could come back but not as mem bers of the United Mine Workers of
 America; that thenceforward the mine
 would be run nOn-union, and the com pany would deal with each man in- dividually. They assented to this. and returned to work on a nSn-union basis. MT. Pickett. the mine superin- | tendent- had charge of employing the men, then afterwards. and to each one
 who applied for employment he eS- ] plained the conditions. which were
 that while the company paid the wages demanded by the Union and as much
 as anybody else. the mine was run non
 union and would continue so to run; | that the company would not reCSgnize
 the United Mine Workers of America; that if any man wanted to become a
 member of that union he was at lib- erty to do so: but he could not be a
 member of it and remain in the employ
 of the Hitchman Company; that if he
 worked for the company he would have to work as a non-union man. To this
 each man employed gave his assr-S
 understanding that while he worked for the company he must keep out Of ! the Union.
 Since January. 1908 (after the com
 mencement of the suitl. in addition 90 having this verbal understanding. each
 man has been required to sign an em- ! plOyment card expressing in substance
 the same terms This has neither en-
 larged nor diminished plaintiffs rights
 the agreement not being such as is required by law to be in writing.
 Under this arrangement as 70 the terms of employment, plaintiff operat-
 ed its mine from June 12. 1906, until
 the commencement of the suit in the
 fall of the following year.
 During the same period a precisely similar method of employment obtain | ed at the Glendale mine. a property
 consisting of about 1900 acres Sf coal
 land adjoining the Hitchman property
 on the south, and operated by com pany having the same stockholders and the same management as the Hitchman: the office of the Glendale mine being at the Hitchman Ccal & Coke Company's office. Another mine | in the Panhandle. known as the Ricn- | land. a few miles north of the Hitch
 man, likewise was run ''nSn-uniOn." In fact, all coal mines in the Pan handle and elsewhere in West Virgi-
 mia. except in a small district known
 as the Kanawha field. were run non
 union.' while the entire industry in Ohio. Indiana and Illinois was cperat- | ed on the ''clOsed-shOp" basis. So that
 no man could hold a job aboul the
 mines unless he was member of the | United Mine Workers of merica- l Pennsylvania occupied middle
 ground. only a part of it being under the jurisdiction of the Union. Other
 States need not be particularly men | toned.
 ! The unorganized condition of tho
 mines in the Panhandle and some Oth- CT districts was recognized as a ser ! ious interference with the purposes Of | the Union in the Central Competitive | Field, particularly as it tended to keep 1 the cost of production low. and. | through competition with coal produc-
 ed in the organized field. rendered il
 more difficult for the operators there
 10 maintain prices high enough 10 in duce them to grant certain concessions | demanded by the Union. This was the subject of earnest and protractei dis cussTon in the annual international convention of the T.. NJ. W. A. held al Indianapolis, Indiana. in the month of ! January, 1907, at which all of the sn- i swering defendants were present aS delegates and participated in the pro ceedinss. The discussion was based upon statements contained in the an nual reports Of John Mitchell. as Pres i ident of the Union Ooined as a de- ' fendant in the bill but not served with ! process), and Of defendant Lewis as ' Vice President. respecting the causes and consequences Of the strike or 1906. and the policy to be adopted by the Union for the future. In these reports | it was made to appear that the strike | had been caused immediately hy the l failure of the joint convention of opeT-
 ators and miners representing tho cen | tral and southwestern competitive | fields. held in the early part of the
 year 1906. ro come 10 an agreement | for a renewal oT the mining cale;
 that the strike was widespread. ilvOlv- ' ing not less than 100000 mine work | CTS, was terminated by "diStri6t set 1 dement's" with variant results q dif- |, ferent parts of the territory involved.
 and had not been followed by re newal Of the former relations between ! the operators and miners in the Cen
 tral Competitive Field. Another re
 suit of the strike was large de rease
 in the membership of the Union. Two
 measures of relief were proposed first
 that steps be taken 10 reestablish h the
 joint interstate conferences; ard see
 ond. the organization Of the hitherto unorganized fields. including the Pan
 handle District or West NirgiIi1. Uu- der closed-shop agreements. wi-h all
 men about the mines included in the
 membership Of the United Mine Work
 CTS of America. In the course of the