The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1926-09-10

to go back on him after his many
promises, but he did.
The retraction made by Harrington
Of statements he made against ]. l..
Lewis in 1910, was used by John l..
Lewis to show that Farrington's word
did not mean anything. Referring to
this, Harrington said that ne knew
the retraction was not true, but that
his original statements were true, and
that he signed the retraction for par
ticular reasons.
harrington and Lester.
During the 1922 strike. several
strikebreakers lost their lives in
Williamson county. These scabs were
employed by William j. Lester, who
secured permit from Harrington to
remove dirt off his strip mine. Lester
was not satisfied with digging dirt;
he began digging coal and the soabs
armed to the teeth defied the miners
and went around the county insulting
people. What happened to them is
history.
John L. Lewis, president Of the U.
M. w. OF A., charged Harrington with
having received round sum Of
money from Lester for the permit. He
made other charges against Earring
, ton according to a statement by board
member Dobbins to Harrington. The
result Of these charges was an inter.
esting correspondence between Lewis
and harrington. Only the substance
Of this correspondence can be given
here.
Under date Of Nov. 2, 1922, Far
rington wrote to Lewis, stating that
he was informed by board member
Dobbins, that Lewis informed the ex-
ecutive board that things IN Illinois
were corrupt and that a compact had
been entered into between Earring.
ton and Fishwick and William ]. Les
ter for the operation OF the lahters
strip mine during the strike. Lewis
also charged according to Earring
toms letter that the go-between In the
deal was Robert M. Medill, director
OF the department of mines and min
erals in Illinois, and that the money
was split three ways.
In reply Lewis states that Mr.. Dob
bins memory is somewhat inaccu-
rate" and expressed his willingness to
discuss the matter at issue personally
with Harrington.
Serious Charges.
This evasive reply nettled the latter
who replied at great length, winding
up by saying that Lewis had de-
scended to the level OF a louise"
Among the charges made by Earring
ton against Lewis, which he qualified
to protect himself are:
First: That Lewis got money from
the Kansas operators for his fight
against Alexander Howat.
Second: That Lewis had agreed
with the coal operators Tor a reduc-
ton in wages and that in order to es-
cape responsibility, he decided to call
a strike, which should continue until
the members of the union called for
q settlement even at a reduction in
wages.
Third: That Lewis and others col
lected 100000 from the operators in
Kentucky for permission to operate
during the strike.
Fourth: That instead of borrowing
100000 from the Hartman Bank of
New York, Lewis got s75O,OOO and
that three members Of the directorate
of that bank are operating non-union
mines in the Pennsylvania fields and
that the $65O,OOO which the public
never heard of was kept by Lewis and
his associates on the understanding
that the support of the union would
be withdrawn from the striking mine
workers in the non-union coal fields Of
Pennsylvania.
Harrington concludes:
Furthermore, considering the fact
that you waited until October before
levying special assessment, which
could not be collected until the month
of November, and this in face of the
fact that the striking mine workers
in Pennsylvania had been sending out
pitable nationwide appeals for finan-
cial assistance even since the general
strike was settled during the month