Denver labor bulletin., 1917-02-24


Labor Bulletin, Denver, Colorado.
Dear Mr.. Houston: The Bulletin of
today, February IT, contains an edi-
torial attacking me, which l wish to
reply to as promptly as possible. The
Bulletin has always treated me fairly
up to the time of the appearance of
this editorial, and l assume that you
do not wish to do any injustice, and
that you will publish my reply to your
editorial.
The article or speech which Mr.. Call
breath, secretary of the American
Mining congress referred to is one
that l made before the National Con-
vention of Industrial Commissions
held at Columbus, Ohio, in April of
1916. | sent this to Mr.. Callbreath in
response to his request for some rec
ord of the proceedings of the commits
sion under the industrial law, which
he wished to insert in the Mining
Journal. The statement in The Bulle-
tin about his having given it in a con-
gressional hearing is the first l knew
about that matter.
After going over my remarks you
state that l have perverted the facts
and attempted to influence national
legislation by false representations.
The only falsity that l can find in this
whole matter is the statements which
are made in The Bulletin. You say
that it is inconceivable that / would
so fiagrantly have misrepresented the
facts about the commissions work.
Let us get to the facts-facts speak
for themselves-theyc cannot be denied.
In the first place you state that
sought to show that the commissions
awards were all satisfactory to every
body. | challenge this statement. You
and | both know that all the awards
have not been satisfactory to every
body; both labor and capital have in
some instances disagreed with the
awards. Now we will take up in or
der the various charges of misrepre-
sentation which you say have made:
| First: You state that the awards
and cases of the tailors, machinists,
biscuit makers, mill men and mailers
''were entirely unsatisfactory" You
are mistaken. The tailors and ma
chinists awards were not entirely un-
satisfactory. Neither were the mill
mems awards entirely unsatisfactory.
On the contrary, the tailors and mill
mems awards were very satisfactory
to labor. When the tailors' award was
brought before the union in Denver,
the first words of the tailors' lawyer
as he stepped before the union were
"Well, boys, this is 80 per cent vic
tory"
You state that after many months
of procrastination the tailors took the
matter in their own hands and brought
about an adjustment without any as
sistance on the part of the commits
sion. From the day October Is, 1870
the commission was notified that a
formal hearing was wanted, it was
just two weeks until the hearing be-
gan. The hearing lasted one month,
and was consumed mostly by union
closed, Commissioner Mclaughlin was
operated upon and in the hospital just
six weeks. The first week in January
both sides asked the commission to de
fer decision until March /, during
which time the shops were visited and
some additional matter was placed
before the commission, and a decision
was handed down on that day. Every
tailor shop but one signed up in forty
eight hours after the award of the
commission was announced.
In the machinists' case you state
that the commission refused to enforce
the law compelling employers to pro-
duce their books, and that the award
of the commission was not acceptable
to the union, which secured an agree
ment including "their original de-
mands." Every statement made here
is incorrect. The commission did not
refuse to enforce the law against the
employers, but prepared to do so, and
at the request of the representatives
of the union did not do so.
Second: The decision of the COM