Show ERA TORS NAVE TURN eir Side of Controversy I With Miners Opened JSSION A LIVELY ONE iners Lawyers Challenge Fairness Statements i p I r try r Darrow and Chairman Gray t Have Spirited Discussion RegardIng Regard-Ing tho NonUnion Hen i feranlon Ta Dec 17The an taraelte coal operators opened their Me of the controversy with the mine orkcrs today before the atrlko com s3lon and the attorneys who arc on ord before the commission as rep I rnting the nonunion men began 11ng witnesses The sessions today re probably the liveliest yet held byre by-re commission Iftt i lthe morning cession the miners forycrs challenged the fairness of ccr t uti wage statements handed to the jSnmlsslon by the Pennsylvania Coal feipany and In the afternoon Lawyer SrroT had a spirited discussion with Airman Gray as to whether or not miners had a right to know who Is I fTring the lawyers representing the unlon men before the commission if RECOGNITION OP UNION receding this Simon P Wolvcrton I ttjiwl l for the Reading company whore p who-re the opening address on be W of all the large coal companies E5i thc point in his address that the l Tjmlllon of the union Is not an Ism Is-m before the commission which rht out a protect from Mr Dar I t latter claimed that if It were rJ then the operators should be fork for-k en from presenting testimony that aided to show that the union was re i5 lble for all the alleged violence wamlued during the strike IE UNFAIRNESS OF WAGE STATE r MFXT I The alleged unfairness of the wage tstement came to tho notice of the Lctrtmlsslou as a result of Its inquiry llto the childlabor question In thin ritlnlty Several Httlo girls tcatllled cnfMonday that they worked all night nu silk mill In order to help their folhera who were employed In the cites and received poor pay Ycster < iy 3 Everett Warren who represents Hie Erie company which controls the Pennsylvania Coal company In whose DIDt omo of the fathers worked hand Jpo the commission a memorandum towing that one father last year re cked 1000 for himself and laborer T DIVIDED AMONG FOUR fAt the opening of the session today tht miners placed the two parents on lie Bland and they swore that the rarnlngs mentioned was divided among ram four to six men 11lls testimony surprised the com Ioncrs and Judge Gray asked If t figures on the memorandum were tY n from the wage statement already kd by the company with the commlH ifn and Mr Warren replied In the lilrmatlve i FAITH IS SHAKEN Chairman Gray then requested coun wlfor the company to Indicate In Us foment handed up whether the fig given are for one two or more ien We dont ay s It shakes our illli In i the statement he continued Unless you can show however that Src are none of these cases such as wfiuggcsled by this testimony It will Trry materially shake our faith In It I STATEMENT OF COMPANY ne company through Its general Jiagcr W A Slay was permitted to kc a statement He said The anaylvanla Coal company has two items one where four men work in place and known as a fourhanded kee and another In which there are r two men and known as a two rJe d place There may be places J re only one man works and there IW be plicea where there are four n l working but that fact Is not own to the company Itself The tnpan > does not keep a record of the llvldual In a contract or the num ir It only keeps the name of then the-n In whose name the place Is run Lean bo possible that there are more n In a place than the company has Y cognizance of but that Is cntlre ouialde of its piovlncc The com my he said does not pay the labor t It only pays the man In whose me the place appears SVIIERE FIGURES CAME FROM Jlr Darrow crossexamined Mr May i the latter said he did not know tether two four or six men worked 1 cant the money Indicated on the taoramlum handed to the commls n adding that he got the llgurcs m the auditor of the company I You saw these figures handed to to the newspapers and to the com isbn anti you did not state to any I I that you did not know how many 11 shared in the money earned said f Darrow I did not pay anything about It tr one way or the other replied May l CHALLENGED BY DARROW 9 1 a further discussion Mr Darrow tly challenged the good faith of May Who handed the figures to v pdrytt attorney for prcscntn b 4 to the commission and he said it Unfair to have given them to him vt tho commission without Indlcat how many workmens earnings L nj Irf TOl1 in thorn k s ended the matter The corn L49 J I im d a deputy factory In t1r regarding childlabor and sug Jttrl that the Legislature of Penn Jjanla lv petitioned to Improve the ywy Inspection laws I OPERATORS SIDE OPENED Lfce miners hero rested their case and r Wolverton formally opened the op Qto side of the controversy by Zdlng i statement which represented vles oC all the largo coal com Jr nl Darrow called attention to tho t renow In i the statement that rccoc I on of tho union la not an leaue 1 be e the commission and said that It 1 L CDlnmlfl lon sustained that claim n the OIIlQtors should have no right tsjn wUncsajp to aUQW U > at ho j ii 1 I kTTN IIt violence committed during the strike vas Instigated by the union James Torrey of the Delaware Hudson made the point that the miners occupied indat of the time trying to how that the union was not responsible responsi-ble for It and It would be unfair for the commission to deny the right of the operators to combat that testimony testi-mony monyINDIVIDUAL INDIVIDUAL STATEMENT The matter went no further and Ira II Burns one of the attorneys for the Independent operators presented the opening statements of the Individual companies He said in part The questions at Issue are not between be-tween the operators as a body and the workmen as another body but arc between be-tween the respective companies and their own employees We claim that according to the terms of the submIs Blon any question as to wages should be settled by an examination of the complaints and conditions at each separate sep-arate colliery and that the only Issues involved are those between the onera tor of each minI and the men actually In his employ cmDoAS AS TO WAGES Again we think the commission before be-fore taking any action looking to an increase or wages should carefully consider upon whom such Increase must t fall Of course any Increase hr cost of product ultimately rests upon the consumer There Is no authority to tax one class of poor In order to contribute to the comfort of another Vs vfc understand It one of the chief duties of the commission In this cases case-s to ascertain the value of labor in and about the mines It Is purely a business proposition It Is I the value of the labor and not the necessities of tho laborer that we are trying to ascertain as-certain The laborer Is worthy of his hIre but tho hire Is fixed according to what he does not what he needs LENGTH OF WORKING DAY Afl to the length of a working day This Is a matter In which the Individual Individ-ual operators arc particularly Interest ed As a rule their workings are deep and veins of coal are thin They necessarIly have greater expense for pumping and lifting the coal The business itself entails large fixed charges It may Well be that the difference dif-ference between an eighthour and a tenhour day to the operator might mean the difference between profit and loss ossThe The varying conditions of work at Lhe respective mines make It Impossible Impossi-ble to lay down a hard and fast rule that will do equal justice to all concerned con-cerned If any award Is made by this commission In favor of the United MineWorkers we claim that us a condition con-dition precedent there should be some substantial assurance on the part of such United MIncWorkeni that they will In the future refrain from In anyway any-way Interfering with or molesting persona per-sona who wish to work in or about the mInes but who do not belong to the union nNONUNION NONUNION MEN WITNESSES It was arranged that the attorneys Icprpsentlng tho nonunion men should first call their witnesses and live witnesses wit-nesses were produced who testified that strikers had killed one man and had more or less seriously Injured two other men who worked during the suspension sus-pension The first witness wag Mrs James Wenston the wife of the murdered man and the second was her sonIn I law Mr Darrow naked the soninlaw who was paying for the lawyers who arc representing the nonunion men and then ensued the liveliest till that has occurred the sessions of the com mission CHAIRMAN GRAYS VIEW Counsel for the witness objected and Mr Dal tow Insisted that he and tho commission had a right to know who were back of the nonunion men but Chairman Gray differed with him The chairman said It made no difference If the operators wcro paying for the lawyers He added that It matters nothing In a court of Justice where a man is tried for murder who pays for the prosecution EO long as Jusllce Is done doner Darrow Insisted he had a right to know because this was a peculiar case and exCongressman Brurnm also al-so for the miners claimed that the nonunion men had virtually formed a union because they had asked the commission com-mission to recognize them In the award and protect them from losing their I places and that they also asked for an Increase In pay The colloquy was carried on for sometime some-time and finally Chairman Gray con suited hits colleagues and an a result quietly answered Hint the commissioners commission-ers thought It Immaterial who was back of the nonunion men At f C oclogk l the commission adjourned until tomorrow n 3 eur i J fr jJ r f d |