Bisbee daily review., 1917-12-23
Decision Of tue Supreme Court Of the United States in the Open Shop" Case Rendered December 70, 1917, n Which the Highest Court or tIae Land States the Law GoUern- jag Unions u Seeking to Enforce the Closed Shop.

tiOnal." district, sub-district. and local unions. District No. $ comprises the coal districts of Ohio and the Pan handle of West Virginia Sub-district No. of that District comprises five counties and parts of counties in Ohio. and the Panhandle.
 The answering defendants were and are active and influential members leaders-Jf the Union. Is well as of ficers- Savage, Lewis. and Sullivan have been members from its fOrma- tiOn in 1890, and have held important offices in it and attended the national conv snuons. The others are longtime memoeCs, and possessed an influence indicated by the offices they held, but not lirslited to the duties of those of fices-
 From 1897 to 1906 what were kEown as joint interstate conferences were held annually or biennially between of ficials O. the Union and represents tives C. the operators in the Central Competitive Field (which inciudss Western Pennsylvania, Ohio. In iisn1, and Illinois. but not West Virg.nial, for t.e purpose of agreeing upon the scale oi wages and the conditions of employment in that field In addition there were occasional conferences of the sane character affecting other States and districts.
 Plaintiffs mine is within the ter ritorial limits of Sub-District No. of District No 6. Coal-mining operations were commenced there in the early part Of the year 1902. and the mine was operated "nOn-unron" until April. 1908, when. under threats from the Union officials. including defendants Watkins and Sullivan. that a certain unionizod mine in Ohio. owned by the same proprietors. would be closed down if the men at the Hitchman were not allowed to organize, plaintiff con sented to the unioniZation of the lat ter mine. This went into effect on the first of April. 1908, and upon the very next day the men were called out on strike because of a disagreement with the company as to the~ basis upon which mining should be paid for. The strike continued until May g. requir- ing plaintiff to cease operations and preventing it from fulfilling its con tracts. the most important of which was one for the daily supply of engine ccal to the Baltimore & Ohio railroad at a ooaling station adjoining the mine The financial loss to plaintiff was serious.N The strike was settled and the men resumed work upon the basis of a modification of the official mining scale applicable ro the Hitch man mine
 Again. in the spring of 1904. ths Q was difficulty in renewing the scale. A temporary scale, agreed upon be tween operators and miners for ;fe month of April, 1904. was signed in behalf of the Hitchman company on the 18th oi April Two days later th= men at the Hitchman struck, add tIc mine remained idle for two months during which time plaintiff sustained 1 serious losses in b ISinesS and was put to heavy expense in obtaining coal from other sources to fill its contract with JSs Baltimore & Ohio Railroad company. The strike was settled by the 1lpptiOn of the official scale for the Panhandle District. with amenda- tory 'Oca, rules for the Hitchman mine. After this there was little further trouble until April 1. 1906. when dis agreement of operators with which plaintiff was not cOnnected-the asso- cistion being in fact made up of its competiiors-about arranging the terms Ot the scale for the ensuing two | yea.s. Al the same time a similar dis agreement arose between the oper- ators and the Union officials in the Central Competitive Field. The result was a termination of the interstate ! conferences and a failure to establish any Ofnciai scale for the ensu.u.s twO years. followed by widespread strike. or a number of concurrent strikes. in- vOlving the most of the bituminous cOal-prOducing districts. There was absolutely no grievance or ground of disagreement at the Hitchman mine. { beyond the fact that the mining scale expired by its own terms on March 31. and the men had not received author ity from the Union officials either to renew it or 10 agree to a new one ir | its place. Plaintiff came to an under standing with the local union to the effect that if it's men would continue ct work the company would pay them from April 1st whatever the new scale might be. except that if the new scale siould prove to be lower than that which expired on March 3I. there shCsld be no reduction in wages, while if the scale was raised the company would pay the increased amount. dat ing it back 10 April lst This was sat isfaCtOTy tO the men; but as the ques- ton Of new scale was then under dis cussion at a conference between the officials of the Union and the repre- sentatives of the Operators ASSocia- tion, and plaintiffs employees wished 10 get the sanction Of their officers, the manager Of the Hitchman. mine gof into communication with those ot- ficials. including defendant Green President of District No. 6, and en dsasOred t0 secure their assent to the temporary arrangement. but without success Then a committee pi Inc local union. including Dausnerty, its President. took up the matter with Green and received permission to mine and load engine coal until further not. ice from him. Under this arrange ment the men remained al work for about two weeks On April 18th, de. fendaut Zelenka. Vice President Ot the Suh-DiSfricf visited the mine called a