Cornell UnlvenlJV "-Ibrary HD5325.M631913P18 ... investigation of Pf)"* SSSlll 3 1924 002 217 234 HD 5325 M63 1913 PI6 U. S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Bduce^ tion E.nd Labor. Investigation of Paint creek coal fiedls of West Virginia. Report » IHO 5325" ?)2 THE LIBRARY OF THE NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY u.^. 63p CgjijaRESs, ) SENATE. j Keport IlirVESTIGATION OF PAINT CREEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST UBRARY ._. VIRGINIA. fttCj March 9, 1914.— Ordered to be printed, SwANSON;^PJ33...the Committee on Educa, submixted the followini REPORT. [In pursuance of S. Ees. ST.'] The Committee on Education and Labor, tl?-^a6ffwas referred Senate resolution 37, met, and acting in accordance with the a;uthority in said resolution, appointed a subcommittee, consisting of Senator Swanson as chairman, and Senators Shields, Martine, Kenyon, and Borah, to conduct said investigation on behalf of the conmiittee'. The said subcommittee immediately organized and promptly proceeded with its work. On account of the very broad field of inquiry and the varied subjects of investigation, it was deemed that the work could be more thoroughly and satisfactorily accomplished if it should be specifically divided among the different members of the subcommittee. The chairman of the subcommittee was directed to assign the subjects of investigation to the different members of the subcommittee as he should tmnk advisable. Acting under this authority the chairman assigned to Senator Borah resolution No. 1, which is as follows: Whether or not any system of peonage has been or is maintained in said coal fields. Also resolution No. 4, which is as follows: 'Investigate and report all facts and circumstances relating to the charge that citi- zens ttf the United States have been arrested, tried, and convicted contrary to or in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States. To Senator Martine resolution No. 2, which is as follows: Whether or not postal services and facilities have been fS^e interfered with or obstructed in said coal fields; and if so, by whom, •• .^ Also resolution No. 3, which is as follows: ~^ . Whether or not the immigration laws of this country have been or are being vio- lated in said coal fields; and if so, by whom; and whether or not there have been discriminatitons against said coal fields in the administration of the immigration laws at ports of entry. 2 PAINT CEEEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIBGINIA. To Senator Shields, resolution No. 5, which is as follows: Tnvpstisrate and reDort to what extent the conditions existing in said coal fields in WeTfklim^haTbeen caused by agreements and combmatro^ entere^^^ contrary to Sie laws of the United States for the purpose of controlling the produc- tion, sale, and transportation of the coal of these helds. To Senator Kenyon, resolution No. 6, which is as follows: Investigate and report whether or not firearms, ammunition, and explosives have been shipped into tfie said coal fields with the purpose to exclude the producte of said coaf fields from competitive markets- in interstate trades; and if so, by whom and by whom paid for. Also, resolution No. 7, which is as follows: If any or all of these conditions exist, the causes leading up to such conditions. Each Senator thus designated procured and introduced all avail- able evidence upon the subject assigned to him. This investigation has been most thorough, rarely excelled in this respect. All persons and interests affected were permitted to appear by counsel, introduce and examine witnesses, and submit briefs for the consideration of the committee. The hearings were not closed until all the witnesses desired by anyone interested had testified, alliraportant and pertinent evidence available to the committee had been obtained and examined, and all relevant documentary evidence inserted- in the record. A study of the 2,291 pages of the hearings will give one full and fair information concerning the matters referred to the committee for investigation, and also the ccvnditions prevalent in the mining sec- tion which were made the subject of this inquiry. The apprehension entertained by many that this investigation would tend to increase and intensify the severe conflict and strife existing between the con- tending parties, at the time the resolution was passed, has not been realized. The hearings of the committee were commenced on June 10, 1913, at Charleston, W. Va., and continued there until June 18. The hearings were discontinued at that time on account of important legislation pending in Congress, but were resumed in Washington on September 3, 1913, and concluded there on October 29, 1913. On July 29, 1913, the operators and miners entered into a contract entirely satisfactory, which will continue in force until April 1, 1916. The differences between the operators and miners which were con- sidered irreconcilable have been amicably adjusted. Peace now reigns in this section where heretofore existed strife, contention, and armed conflict. The relations between the operators and miners have become friendly and conciUatory. Business has been resumed, and the mines are being operated. iMartial law has been abohshed and civil law and authority fully reestablished. The committee is satisfied that the investigations have greatly aided in the accom- plishment of these beneficial and much desired results. The com- mittee confined its investigations to the subjects designated in the resolution and refused to enter into other or irrelevant matters when su gge sted. When the investigation was completed. Senator Swanson, chair- manof the subcommittee, requested each Senator to write a report to him upon the subject especially assigned to the Senator. This request has been complied with. These reports have been approved by the committee and adopted and made a part of this report so far as they relate to the subject PAINT CKEEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIEGINIA. 3 designated to the Senator for investigation. So far as these reports discuss other matters — ^proposed legislation, governmental owner- ship or operation of mines — they are the individual views of the Sena- tors making them and are pubUshed as such. The committee did not consider that it was authorized to investigate and report upon these subjects. After carefully considering the evidence of witnesses, documents introduced, the briefs of counsel, and the reports of the various Sena- tors upoii the particular subjects assigned to them, the committee makes and respectfully submits the following report and findings : First. The committee has been unable to find that any system of peonage has been or is maintained in the Paint Creek or Cabin Creek coal fields of West Vir^nia. Second. While there was evidence tending to show some delay, some inconvenience and annoyance in connection with the delivery of mail in this district, yet there was no proof showing any attempt to prevent the usual receipt or delivery of mail from or to the patrons of the various offices. The excited and disturbed conditions in the district caused large crowds to congregate around the post offices, in- cluding private armed guards and soldiers during martial law, which engendered fi-equently misunderstandings, bitterness, and strife, but this was occasioned by other causes and was no part of an intention or an attempt to interfere with the mails. Third. No evidence was furnished to show that the immigration laws of the country were in any way violated by the coal operators in order to obtain miners to take the places of those striking. Many cases were proven where persons were induced to go to the district to work upon misrepresentation and misinformation furnished by employment bureaus in some of the large cities. Some hardships in this respect were disclosed. The importation of this labor into the district intensified the bitterness, greatly increased the strife and disturbance, and delayed the chance of an amicable settlement. In regard to the second part of the inquiry under this division, while there was evidence showing that the former Commissioner of Labor declared a desire to prevent any immigrants from entering these coal fields where the strike among the miners then existed, yet no proof was. furnished to show any such discrimination was ever exercised or any immigrant was prevented from going to these coal fields. Fourth. This branch of the inquiry was assigned to Senator Borah, who has made to the chairman of the subcommittee a very complete report and from which the committee briefly forms the following conclusions: (1) That martial law was declared as to Paint and Cabin Creek country about September 2, 1912, and continued in force with the exception of short intervals until in June, 1913. (2) That during the reign of martial law a number of individuals were arrested, tried, and convicted and sentenced and punished for offenses alleged to have been committed by them. (3) That these parties were arrested upon orders issued by the military authorities and not by virtuje of any warrant issued by the civil authorities or from the established courts of the State, and were put upon their trial, without the finding of amr indictment by the grand jury, before a court m&riff^OPS'fSXbfyQXSe bJ^^^^fte com- mander in chief and composed of Ut^'^^^f^WfJf ^f^ffe^'^^'Sfri!!^- 4 PAINT CREEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIBGINIA. (4) That the charges made against these parties thus put upon their trial were in the nature of specifications drawn up and presented by the military authorities, and upon these they were put upon their trial before said court-martial without a jury. ■ r . , (5) That in the trial of these parties and m the assessmg of punish- ments the court before which they were tried deemed itself bound alone by the orders of the commander in chief, the governor of the State, and in no respect bound to observe the Constitution of the United States or the constitutioh'or the statutes of the State of West Virginia relative to the trial and punishment of parties charged with crime. That they acted under the claim that aU the provisions of the constitution, both State and National, and the statutes of the State relative to such matters were suspended and for the time inoperative by reason of the existence of martial law. (6) That at the time these arrests were made and the trials and convictions had the civil courts were open, holding their terms as usual, disposing of cases and dispensing justice in the usual and ordinary manner. That in some instances arrests were made outside the military zone for offenses alleged to have been committed outside the militaiy zone and at a time when martial law did not prevail, and when such arrests were made the parties were turned over by the civil authorities to the milita;^ authorities for detention, trial, and punishment. (7) That in rendering judgment and assessiijg punishment the parties were punished by terms of imprisonment unknown to the statutes or in excess of the punishment provided for such offenses under the laws of the State. That a number of these parties were sent to jaU and many to the State penitentiary under sentence from this court-martial as ap- proved by the governor. Most of those who were sent to the peni- tentiary were given a conditional pai'don before the term for which they were sentenced had expired, the pardon being conditioned in a general way upon good behavior. That the parties sentenced to the penitentiary were received into the penitentiary as ordinary con- victs and treated in every respect as parties sentenced for crimes by the criminal courts of the State. (8) That under the laws of West Virginia a warrant of arrest may be issued from one justice of the peace court, and the hearing and trial upon the said warrant of arrest may be transferred and brought on for hearing before any other justice oi the peace in the same county. (9) That a place of holding court — that is, for the civil or common law courts — was at Charleston, W. Va., a distance of several miles from the disturbed district or mihtary zone. (10) That no threats of violence or use of force was made or had against the judges or the courts at any time during the existence of the disturbance or the reign of martial law. (11) That great feeling and interest doubtless prevailed generally throughout the country, but the existence of this feehng and its effect upon grand or petit juries was not tested by the calling of a grand jury, or the submitting of the charges against these persons to a grand jury, and no attempt was made to try them before a petit lury— the officers of the country, after the declaration of martial law, proceeding upon the assumption that the feeling and prejudice was so strong as to prevent the operation of the civil authorities, together with a further behef that the declaration of martial law had PAINT GREEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIEGINIA. 5 the effect of suspending and nullifying all constitutional and stat- utory rights of the accused. Fifth. The matter contained in this branch of the inquiry is now the subject of investigation by the United States courts, both in a civil suit and in a criminal prosecution. The commfttee deems it would be improper for it to determine in advance questions of either law or fact whicn courts of competent jurisdiction have under consideration in cases pending before them. The committee confines itself in this matter to submitting a summary of the evidence collated and pre- pared by Senator Shields. Sixth. The investigation disclosed that large quantities of ammu- nition, pistols, shotguns, rifles, and machine guns were brought into the district by both parties to the controversy and freely used. There is no evidence to prove that these shipments were made by com- petitors for the purpose of creating conditions in this district so as to exclude its coal from the competitive markets in interstate trade. Seventh. The conditions existing in this district Jor many months were most deplorable. The hostihty became so intense, the conflict so fierce, that there existed in this district for some time well-armed forces fighting for supremacy. Separate camps, organized, armed, and guarded, were established. There was much violence and some murders. Pitched battles were fought by the contending parties. Law and order disappeared, and Ufe was insecure for both sides. Operation and business practically ceased. As these unhappy conditions no longer exist, as the differences between the contending parties have been amicably adjusted and an agreement entered into for several years, and as peace and confidence now prevail, work and business having been resumed, the committee does not consider it wise or necessary to elaborate upon the many causes which produced these deplorable conditions. Among the contributing causes may be enumerated the following: The failure of the operators in the Paint Creek district to renew their expiring contract with the United Mine Workers; the determi- nation of the coal operators under no circumstances to recognize the miners as an organization or union, and the equal determination of the miners to organize and form a union, a right as they claim gu^jr- anteed to them without discrimination by the laws of West Virginia; the employment by the operators of mine guards, many of whom were aggressive and arbitrary; mine guards in the employment of the operators acting as deputy sheriffs and clothed with the authority of law; the failure of the civil authorities to attempt even to preserve peace and order at the beginning of violence and permitting things to drift from bad to worse without vigorous interference and asser- tion of authority; discontent among the miners occasioned by no opportunity' to purchase homes; no cemeteries except upon the company's grounds; post oflaces located in the company's stores; private roads only to the schools and stores; the disposition of the coal operators to keep strict espionage of all strangers who entered the district and to exercise then- right of private ownership of this large district and to exclude from it all persons objectionable to them. These may be stated as some of the immediate contributing causes. The committee makes no recommendation of remedial legislation, as it was not authorized to do so under the Senate resolution, but was limited in its powers to the investigation and ascertainment of designated facts.. Senator Borah submitted the following report to the chairman of the subcommittee: COUBT-MABTIAL TRIALS. The fourth subdivision of the resolution under which this investi- gation was made provides as follows : Investigate and report all facts and circumstances relating to the charge tliat citi- zens of the United States have been arrested, tried, and convicted contrary to or m violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States The committee understands that this limits its authority, to the simple proposition of investigating and reporting the facts and ch-- cumstances relating to this charge and nothing more. On the 1st day of April, 1912, the contract between the union miners in Kanawha VaUey and the operators expired. Upon the expiration of this contract Gov. Glasscock became mterested, or per- haps we should better say was consulted, with reference to. the trou- bles between the miners and operators in the Kanawha Valley. The progress of this trouble we need not refer to here, as that is discussed under another head.- Suffice it to say that the governor upon the 2d day of September, 1912, declared martial law as to that portion of the State of West Virginia which was involved in the strike diffi- culties. Martial law remained in this district from the 2d of Sep- tember up to and including the 14th or 15th of October. The second period of martial law began on the 15th of Noven^ber, 1912. During the first period of martial law there were certain trials before the military tribunals held at Pratt, in Kanawha County, W. Va. The men who were tried before these tribunals were arrested by order of some mihtary officer upon charges formulated before the judge advocate general, and the arrest was made by serving a copy upon the party charged and taking him into custody. That is to say, they were brought before this military court by virtue of the specifica- tions served upon them and not by any civil process issued by any common law or civil court. The parties charged were given time to get their witnesses and counsel, but the courts proceeded whoUy and exclusively upon what was deemed to be military authority, and under the mihtary law and not under the civil law. At these first trials there were some 55 or 66 persons tried alto- gether — about 15 persons who were known as Baldwin guards, 2 miners, and a group of persons consisting largely of Greeks, amounting to some 40 or 43 individuals. They were tried as high as 30 in a group. Three of the parties were adjudged guilty and sent to the peniten- tiary, some as high as two years; others to one year in the peniten- tiary^ and some were sentenced to the county jail. There were some acqmttals. In proceeding with these trials the tribunal adhered to military law and procedure in so far as it recognized any law at all, and did not in any respect follow the law and practice provided by the civil law. 6 PAINT CREEK COAL FIELDS OP WEST VIBGINIA. 7 There were also trials by court-martial during the second period of martial law. These trials were held in the same way and the pro- cedure was precisely the same. In the second trials most of the parties charged were found guilty and sentenced to long terms in the penitentiary, some as high as seven and one-half years, ranging from that down to one year. It is proper perhaps to state here, as it is a fact, that these persons when received at the penitentiary were treated m the same way and subjected to the same rules and discipline and regarded in every respect as if they had been sentenced by the civil law courts. The number who were tried during the second period of martial law was somewhat indefinite, but perhaps from 15 to 20. , The offenses were offenses alleged to have been committed both during the reign of martial law and also at a time when martial law did not prevail. There were also court-martial trials at a later period, during the reign of martial law. This was what was known as the big trial, by reason of the number of parties tried. The trials grew out of offenses alleged to have been committed during what was known as the battle of Mucklow. The parties were charged in the specifications with conspiracy with intent to destroy personal property, and conspiracy to inflict bodily injuries, murder committed ia pur- suance of conspira^, accessories after the fact, and carrying deadly weapons. These offenses were all charged in one' set of specifications. The offenses for which these parties were tried, both in this trial and in the other trials, were offenses which could have been pun- ished under the civil law and in the common-law courts of the State. That is _to_ say, they were offenses against the laws of the State of West Virginia. Just what the result of this latter trial was, as to convictions, the committee was unable to ascerta-n, as the judg- ments were perhaps never approved by the governor, but the parties, a number of them, were detained and imprisoned in the dififerent county jails of the State. It will be sufficient to give one of the orders under which these trials were had : Geneeai, Orders, No. 23. The following is published for the guidance of the military commiaaion, oi^nized under General Orders, No. 22, of this ofiice, dated November 16, 1912: 1. The military commission is substituted for the criminal courts of the district covered by the martial-law proclamation, and all offenses against the civil laws as they existed piiorto the proclamation of November 15, 1912, shall be regarded as offenses under the military law, and as a punishment therefor the military commission can impose such sentences, either lighter or heavier than those imposed under the civil law, as in their judgment the offender may merit. 2. Cognizances of offenses against the civil law as they existed prior to November 15, 1912, committed prior to the declaration of martial law and unpunished, will be taken by the military commission. 3. Persons sentenced to imprisonments will be confined in the penitentiary at Moundsville, W. Va. By command of the governor; CD. Elliott, Adjutant General. The civil courts of Kanawha and day Counties, the counties in which the military zone is situated, were open, holding their regular terms at all times during the existence of martial law. No threats of violence or of force were had or made against the courts or judges 8 PAINT CEEEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIRGINIA. thereof. Joseph H. Gaines, a member of the bar of West Virginia and residing at Charleston, the capital, testified as follows: The State is divided into what we call circuits, and the drcuit court is the court of general jurisdiction. This circuit comprises Kanawha County and Clay County. Then there is an intermediate court, which is coextensive only with the County of Kanawha, and that has criminal jurisdiction; that is the court which has a grand jury, and offenses against the statute or State— ordinary criminal offenses— are tried m the criminal court and then appeal may be had to the circuit court and then to the supreme court of appeals of the State. The court sits in this county at the courthouse in Charleston. The courts have not been closed. There have been grand juries. The witness further testified that Cabin Creek and Paint Creek were principally in Kanawha County, Paint Creek extending, however, to Fayette County. In this connection it may be properly stated that Kanawha County has a population from eighty to eighty-seven thousand, and the city of Charleston a population of some 25,000, and the military zone is comprised of a comparatively small proportion of the county. None of the offenses for which the parties were tried by court- martial were ever submitted to the grand jury and no indictments were had or sought before any regularly impaneled grand jury. As to the manner in which the military court was constituted Charles K. Morgan, an attorney of Charleston, testified: I am and was connected with the military service all through the six months that martial law was enforced. The military commission was composed of Mr. Morgan (the witness), James I. Pratt, Capt. S. L. Walker, Lieut. Roberts, and Capt. Sherwood, all members of the State militia. The witness further states, in general, that no civil process was used to bring the parties before the court, that the evidence upon the hearing was taken down, and that the offenses for which the parties were tried were statutory offenses under the laws of West Virginia. Capt. James I. Pratt testified in substance that he was a major in the militia; that his headquarters were at Pratt, in Kanawha County; that he was a member of the second mihtary court, which he said was composed of Mai. Pratt, Capt. Walker, Capt. Morgan, and Lieut. Roberts, all members of the State militia; and that the offenses for which the parties were tried were offenses known to the statutes of the State of West Virginia and punishable under the laws of that State; that no preliminary hearings or indictments of the grand jury were had with reference to any of the defendants who were tried before the military courts. None of the defendants who were tried and convicted, referred to in this report, were members of the State mUitia or in the military service. As to the authority or power of the military court Capt. Morgan was asked: Do I understand that the court of which you are a member, the military court, recommended sentences for punishment in excess of the punishment which was permitted by the statutes of me State? Mr. Morgan. That is my understanding, sir. Senator Borah. As we understand the matter, the military court was undertaking to follow out the orders and exercise the discretion permitted it from the commander in chief, rather than undertaking to follow the statutes? Mr.MoRGAN. It was our understanding. Senator, and it appeared s,o to us having been in the field quite a good while, that a state of war existed in that locality ana having been in_ the field myself _ for about three months at that time and having known of the disorders, and having had connection with a great deal 'of it havini taken up several hundred guns myself, and having seen the conditions and knowing PAINT CBEEK COAL PrELDS OF WEST VIBGINIA. 9 the conditionB going on at that time, we took it to he that a state of war actually existed at that time and punished the offenders accordingly. Senator Boeah. Regardless of what the statute of the State might provide? Mr. MoHGAN. Yes, sir. or Senator Borah. Now, then, Captain, if the military tribunal of which you were a member had seen fit to sentence a man to the penitentiary for life for perjury, you would have felt that you had the power to do it, would you not? Mr. Morgan. Well, we might have made that recommendation— a commission might have been found to make that recommendation. Senator Borah. I am not assuming you did it. I am now testing the question of your power as you viewed it. Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir; as I viewed it at that time I considered it to be a law. It is proper to say that it was contended very earnestly upon the part of the then prosecuting attorney and other parties that the feeling was such through Kanawha County that it would have been impossible to have convened the grand jury and thereafter a trial jury which would have impartially tried the defendant; that the people had taken sides and that they were' aU partisans of either one side or the other of those who were in conflict in the military zone. It was not contended that the courts were closed, but the contention was that they were inoperative and powerless by reason of the prejudice and bitterness of the partisanship prevailing through- out the county; that they neither could get the evidence nor get the juries who would pass properly upon the evidence. (Mr. Avis, then prosecuting attorney, testified:) I would say that nearly 20,000 people resided in the military zone, from my infor- mation of that zone. Senator Borah. The balance, 60,000 or 67,000, resided outside the military zone? Mr. Avis. Outside of the military zone; but a large number of them within the affected region, just across the river, where the other mines were. Senator Borah. No part of the balance of the county was under martial law at any time? Mr. Avis. I think not. Senator Borah. Outside of the military zone, as I understand your testimony, you believe that that which affected the enforcement of the civil law or the effectual action of the civU authorities was due to the prejudice or feeling which arose by reason of this contention? Mr. Avis. Yes. Senator Borah. In other words, you desire to convey to the subcommittee the belief that the community had taken sides either with the operators or with the miners? Mr. Avis. I do. Senator Borah. And that by reason of that feeling the civil authorities were unable to hold their courts and proceed under the ordinary rules of procedure? Mr. Avis. That is true as relates to trials. As to performing other official functions there were other things which prevented. Senator Borah. Did that include the entire community, in your judgment? Mr. Avis. Does what include the entire community? Senator Borah. This feeling or prejudice? Mr. Avis. I think it did, Senator, at that time. There was' other evidence setting forth this view of the situation. Senator Borah. At what time were these offenses alleged to have been committed for which these men were tried with reference to the date of criminal law? Col. Wallace. Most of them had been committed in the interim between the 15th of October and the 15th of November, when martial law was withdrawn, and they were for offenses that had to do with the disturbances going on in that district. I mean by that disorders of certain kinds that happened. Senator Borah. How long prior to the second declaration of martial law had these offenses been committed, how many days? Col. Wallace. There had only been 30 days' interval between the withdrawal of the first proclamation and the publishing of the second, and only from memory; my idea is, would be anywhere from 10 to 15 or 20 days. 10 PAINI CBEEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIKGINIA. Senator Bohah. Now, at the time they committed these ofieases or alleged offenses and were charged with committing these offenses there was no martial lawT Col. Wallace. No, sir. Ool. Wallace. Well, now, I do not know what you are getting at. My theory of that whole situation was that the governor had a right to declare martial law. If he declared martial law, then the laws of war applied, and the laws of war would fix the punishment within tiie discretion of the military power. Mr. Belcheh. Then you assumed that the constitution and civil law was suspended? Col. Wallace. 1 did; and the supreme court has sustained that assumption. Mr. Belcher. And you also contended that the National Constitution was sus- pended by the act of the governor in declaring martial law? Col.- Wallace. I made no contention aa to the National Constitution, as it was not in issue. Mr. Belchek. You did not, then, recognize that the citizens of the United States residing in West Virginia had any constitutional rights; that is, under the Federal Constitution? Col. Wallace. I do not understand that the Federal Constitution applies to the citizens of West Virginia as such except in so far as the fourteenth amendment requires the State to give them an equal protection of its laws. Mr. Belcher. Was that done m these cases? Col. Wallace. I understand so. That was my judgment of it, sir. Mr. Belcher.. Is. there any law in West Virginia that authorizes the trial of civilian^ for criminal offenses by a military commission? Col. Wallace. I was under that impression. We did it and the supreme court said we were right in the case of Mays and Nan tz, which are reported in the supreme court decisions. Mr. Belcher. You took the position all the way through this case you have referred to that there was no law within the military zone other than the will of the commander in chief? Col. Wallace. Absolutely; and maintain that yet. # * * # * * * Col. Wallace. The test is, as I understand it: Is there open and operative courts? And if it is shown that the courts are not open and operative, then it was not only the duty of the governor, but the right of the governor under the law, to declare martial law, and in his action he is responsible to the people of his State or to the legislature by way of impeachment. Mr. Knight. Who took up the question? Col. Wallace. Capt. Avis. Mr. Watts. The prosecuting attorney? Col. Wallace. The prosecuting attorney. And I asked him the question as to where the offense had been committed, and he stated, aa I recall, in Charleston, and stated what the offenses were, and I said, "Do you regard that as an offense under the law?" Hesaid, "Yes;andl wantyoutotry them." I says, "Have you tried them?" He says, " No ; I can not get an indictment, neither can I get a conviction. ' ' He saya, "Juries are so that I can not get it." I said, "Have you tried?" He says, "No; it is useless." A short time after that a conference was had between the then gov- ernor — ^but I was not present at that and it would not be proper for me to say, as I only know of it by information — and that was the understanding I got from the sheriff and the prosecuting attorney and other persons in this county — that by reason of the strife and bitterness going on here that pretty nearly every man you met was a partisan on one side or the other and the courts were closed, and that is the theory I went upon in justifying martial law. Attorney General Lilly. Do you mean they were actually closed as such, or were inoperative in the strike region? _ (Jol. Wallace. No; the courts were not closed, but were going on with their duties m a good many ways; but my understanding was that so far as matters that grew out of the killings and beatings and one thing and another that grew out of the strike zone no mdictments were returned and nobody was tried, and that was excused by the local officers on the ground of intense feeling on one side or the other. That was Sut m the shape of an affidavit— in what case was that, Mr. Belcher? I think the to Chain case or the Nantz case. They filed an affidavit of iJie sheriff of this county and the prosecutmgattorney setting out those facts. Senator Bokah. Did the county attorney call a grand jury? PAINT GREEK COAL MELDS OS" WEST VlBGlNlA. 11 CoL Wallace. No, sir; the governor asked the local people to call a grand jury, and put his contingent fund at their disposal. It was not called, and whatever reason was given 1 do not recall, but the general reason, as I imderstand it, was that it was BO that they felt they could not do it. At least they did not do it. Senator Bohah. Why could they not do it? Col. Wallace. That would be a matter I could not answer. A good many people have different ideas and different views why they could not. It was just the differ- ence between won't and can't. Whether they would not or could not I do not know. The fact remains they did not. Senator Boeah. No grand jury has ever ignored any offenses, have they? Col. Wallace. My information is that they have, and the prosecuting attorney stated to me no longer ago than this morning that in the case of a man named Ray Morse, if I recollect it, who was charged of beating up Bobbett — he introduced a large number of witnesses before the grand jury, and they declined to indict. Senator Borah. When was that? Col. Wallace. Bobbett was beaten up in August preceding the declaration of martial law, and the grand jury convened in October — in the interval of martial law. Senator Borah. After martial law had been declared? Col. Wallace. The grand jury met in the interval, as I imderstand. Senator Borah. But no grand jury, prior to the 2d of September, had been called upon to indict these different men for these offenses, had there? Col. Wallace. My understanding is there was one grand jury between that — I am not sure of that — and that the evidence was offered, and I think that is in the affidavit. But my recollection is — ^if it is not in the affidavit — I was told that the Baldwin guards went in and testified as to the killing of one of their number, and instead of hidicting the person that they testified against they were indicted themselves. Senator Borah. Perhaps that was a true indictment. Col. Wallace. Well, they were indicted upon their evidence. I do not know whether that is right or not. Mr. Jackson. Do you recall the action of the governor telegraphing Judge Black, who was out of town, to come to town and hold a special term of court? Col. Wallace. Yes, sir; I recollect that. Mr. Jackson. Do you remember what happened in regard to that? Col. Wallace. No; my mind is not clear on tiiat. I know there was a conference en that at the statehouse, and I was not present at the time, but my impression is when it was over they concluded to put it over for a more opportune time. The cam- paign was going on and it might not have been a good thing. Senator Borah. The coiurts were running here, so far as the general business was concerned, just the same as on previous occasions, were they not? Col. Wallace. Yes, sir. Senator Borah. The courts were not closed in any sense that they were not being held according to the stated terms when they should be held? Col. Wallace. I think not. My information is they were being held at stated terms and conducting the usual business outside this business up here. Senator Borah. And petit juries and trial juries, etc., were on hand or could be on hand? Col. Wallace. I believe so; yes, sir. ■ , j Senator Borah. If they were closed, then, in your sense of the idea of being closed, it would be from the fact that the prosecuting officers thought that the prejudice was such there was no use to try to indict or convict these men? Col. Wallace. I will not make it that strong. It was because the prosecutmg officers had attempted in some instances to get indictments and failecL and in their judgment further attempts were useless. I do not mean to say they did not try. Senator Borah. When did this grand jury convene? This presents a very inter- esting and important feature of this case. Col. Wallace*. I am not familiar with the terms of the grand jury of Kanawha County; but it seems to me, if you will pardon me, there are several lawyers here who can tell you the exact time. There is no use to say something I do not know anything Senator Borah. All you know about the courts being closed is what these men stated as to the ineffectiveness of their efforts to prosecute? Col. Wallace. And what was going on. We could see as a matter of common knowledge what was going on in part of the county ^ , ^ ^, Senator Borah. But you did not know except what they told you as to what they had done in reference to enforcing the law? Col. Wallace. No. ^ « « • 12 PAINT CEEEK COAL FIELDS OP WEST VIEGINIA. (Mr. Townsend, the present prosecuting attorney of Kanawha County, testified as follows:) We asked the governor for troops. . Senator Borah. Mr. Townsend, you are the present prosecuting attorney f Mr. Townsend. Yes, sir. . , , , ^• Senator Borah. You have had grand Junes regularly at such times as you wanted them, or such times as they were provided for, since you have been prosecutmg attorney? Mr. Townsend. Since the 1st of January, 1913. Senator Borah. Three grand juries? Mr. Townsend. Four. We had a special grand jury. I forgot that. Senator Borah., You did have a special grand jury? Mr. Townsend.' Yes, sir. Senator Borah. You presented the evidence with reference to the crime ui which' Bobbitt was interested? Mr. Townsend. Yes, sir. Senator Borah. What was this offense? Mr. Townsend. The indictment was returned for malicious wounding. Senator Borah. Who was Mr. Bobbitt? Mr. Townsend. Mr. Bobbitt was bookkeeper for one of the coal companies on Paint Creek. Senator Borah. You said 1hat no one was able to identify the individuals who assaulted Bobbitt but himself? Mr. Townsend. That is all. Senator Borah. Nevertheless, the grand jury returned an indictment? Mr. Townsend. On his evidence; yes, sir. Senatol- Borah. Who were the men who were indicted— that is, their relationship to this controversy — were they miners, mine operators, militiamen, or watchmen, or what? Mr. Townsend. They were all miners, ia my understanding. That is my infor- mation. Senator Borah. How many were indicted? Mr. Townsend. Five. Senator Borah. Thenj upon the testimony of Mr. Bobbitt as to identification, five of these miners were indicted by this grand jury? Mr. Townsend. Yes, sir. Senator Borah. Can you give me the date of that? Mr. Townsend. That the indictment was returned? Senator Borah. Yes. Mr. Townsend. The first Monday in January the grand jury convened and it remained in session some three or four days. It would be about the 8th or 9th of Janu- ary. Senator Borah. When did you have your next grand jury? Mr. TpwNSEND. We had a special session of the grand jury in February. Senator Borah. That was the time when Mr. Miller's matter was presented. Mr. Townsend. No, sir. Senator Borah. When was his affair presented? Mr. Townsend. Indictment was returned against Mr. Miller at the January term — I do not mean Mr. Miller; I mean L. J. Michael. Senator Borah. Who is Mr. Michael? Mr. Townsend. Mr. Michael is a gentleman connected with the militia in some way. I do not know what position he holds. Senator Borah. What was the charge, in a general way? Mr. Townsend. He was charged with shooting and killing a man by the name of Miller, a negro. Senator Borah. Waa there an indictment? Mr. Townsend. Yes, sir. Senator Borah. What was the date of this indictment's return? Mr. Townsend. The same time the indictment was returned against Bobbitt; early in January. Senator BorAh. Then, at the time of this first meeting they indicted four or five miners and also a member of the militia? Mr. Townsend. Yes, sir. Senator Borah. That grand jury, so far as the general results are concerned, returned indictments upon those matters which you submitted to them. Mr. Townsend. Yes, sir; in every instance. PAINT CKEEK COAL FIELDS 01" WEST VIKGINIA. 13 Senator Borah. That was in 1913? Mr. TowNSEND. Yes, sir. Senator Borah. That is all. * * * » • » • (Gov. Glasscock, upon this subject, testified as follows:) Senator Borah. I do not know that I understand you exactly, Governor. Is it not true that parties were arrested here in C!harleston upon warrants issued from the civil courts, and that after being arrested by the civil authorities they were turned over to the military authorities and tried by ttie miKtary authorities? Gov. Glasscock. Not diiring my administration, so far as the trial was concerned. Col. Wallace. May I make a su^stion? What I think you are getting at is, there were three persons arrested in the city of Charleston. Mrs. Jones— I think there were tour— Mrs. Jones, Batley, Boswell, and Paulson, by warrants issued by justice of the peace, and they were taken to tlxe strike zone and there arrested by flie military authorities, and that was done by the civil authorities. I have in my possession the original warrants with the return thereon. Senator Borah. These parties that were taken in charge by the military authorities later were, in the first instance, arrested by the civil authorities? Col. Wallace. Yes, sir; and in their custody. Senator Borah. And then turned over to the military authorities? Col. Wallace. Yes, sir. Senator Borah. As a matter of fact, the civil authorities were turning over these parties, in some instances, to the military authorities? Col. Wallace. In the instances I have referred to for offenses that had been com- mitted in the zone up there. Senator Borah. That seems to demonstrate that the civil authorities were capable of making an arrest. Col. Wallace. That demonstrates this: That they were arrested in the city of Charleston. As to whether or not they could have tried them in a court here, that is another question. Gov. Glasscock. These people were tried, Senator Borah, if at all, after my term. I know nothing about the trial. Senator Bokah. Now, Governor, did you have any evidence before you, other than the opinion of the judge and the opinion of the prosecuting attorney, that you could not get a fair and a partial jury to try these cases? Gov. Glasscock. I did. I had the opinion of the miners up there on the one side and the operators on the other side and the fact that, at least in my judgment, 25 or 30 murders had been committed arid nothing done. Senator Bokah. Well, that was not the fault of the grand jiury fihat was never con- vened, that nothing was done. Gov. Glasscock. That is a matter of argument. Senator. You asked me for the fact and I am trying to give it to you. Senator Borah. Exactly; but I want to know why nothing was done. The grand jury had not been convened; nobody knew whether a grand jury would indict or not tin til the matter was submitted to them; therefore I infer that the matter was based upon the opinion of the judge and prosecuting oflficer, rather than an actual attempt to secure a grand jury and an actual demonstration that it would not indict? Gov. Glasscock. Well, you are entirely logical. Senator, in your judgment of the case. - At the same time these things had been going on not only for Qiese months during which this strike had taken place, but for months before that, and nothing had been done. Now, miners were coming to me and complaining that they could not get justice in that territory. They told me of the outrages that has been committed upon them and nothing done. The operators, on the other hand, were complain- ing of things that had been done and they had no redress. And I knew that mur- ders were being committed and no prosecutions were being had, and to my mind that was about as convincing as anything could be that if tiie courts of this county were open to tiiese people, they were not open to any purpose, or at least the guilty people, whoever they were, were not being prosecuted; and I want to be under- stood here as saying that I do not believe for a minute that all these offenses were being committed by one side at all, because if I understood the situation pitched batUes were being fought and botii sides were to blame, and it was not a question of prosecut- ing one side, it was a question of prosecuting whoever might be guilty, regardless of which side he was on. Senator Boeah. Well, Governor, the thing that the subcommittee is "lost inter- ested in is the question of whether or not there was ever called into action a grand jury which refused to indict these men or a petit jury which refu-^ed to convict these men. Now, I do not say this as the opinion of the committee, Lut il would seem to 14 PAINT GREEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIEGINIA. be the assumption only of the prosecuting attorney and the district judge that it could not be done unless there had been a demonstration of the fact by the calling ot the juries into action. Gov. Glasscock. I can see how you might arrive at that conclusion. Senator Borah. In view of the fact that the grand jury was not called, according to your request, and the evidence was never submitted to the grand jury, we have only now the assumption that it could not be done. Gov. Glasscock. The prosecuting attorney, however, did, Senator Borah, give me instances of where people had been summoned before the grand jurjr and no indict- ments found prior to this trouble — I mean prior to this strike — and instances where cases had been submitted to petit juries and no convictions had. Senator Boeah. Do you have reference now to what was known as the Italian case, or the case where the Italians were sought to be indicted and they indicted the men who appeared against the Italians? Gov. Glasscock. No; there were still other cases than those, but prior to that time. Senator Borah. Can you refer to the cases and identify them? Gov. Glasscock. I could nbt. Senator Borah. I suppose the prosecuting attorney will be able to do that? Gov. Glasscock. I thmk so. Senator Borah. Well^ the courts generally were operating here in this county, aside from anything which might have occurred in the military zone, were they not? Gov. GLAsecocK. Yes. (Frank C. Burdette, assistant district prosecuting attorney, testified as follows:) Col. Wallace. Why didn't you believe you could get any results from a special grand jury? Mr. Burdette. Owing to the expressed opinions throughout the county. Col. Wallace. Expressed opinions, how; what do y;ou mean by that? Mr. Burdette. I was of the opinion then, and I still entertain the same opinion, that a great majority of the people throughout this county had expressed themselves one way or the other. Col. Wallace. Are we to understand you, that if the grand jury had been convened at that time and the evidence submitted to it, that, in your opinion, you could not have gotten 12 members of that grand jury who would have concurred in an indictment against persons in this trouble up here? Mr. Burdette. I really don't want to say that. I have my doubts about that. Col. Wallace. Do you believe that the civil authorities of Kanawha County, in August, 1912, were able to take care of that situation in the Cabin Creek district? Mr. Burdette. We were not. Senator Borah. This first grand jury to which you have directed our attention was the June term, 1912? Mr. Burdette. Yes, sir. Senator Borah. And at that time there was an indictment returned against these guards for the killing of the Italian? Mr. Burdette. Yes, sir. Senator Borah. And the evidence before the grand jury showed, upon the part of the guards, that they did not do the shooting? Mr. Burdette. Yes, sir. Senator Borah. You expected, then, the grand jury to return an indictment, didn't you? Mr. Burdette. I did. Senator Borah. You drew the indictment? Mr. BtJRDETTE. I did. Senator Borah. And approved of the return of the indictment? Mr. Burdette. If I had not approved it, I would have nolled it. Senator? Senator Borah. Then the grand jury, so far as your opinion is concerned, did per- form what you think was its duty? Mr. Burdette. Yes; in reference to that indictment against the guards. Senator Borah. You say there were some other indictments which you felt youraelt ought to have been found? Mr> Burdette. That is, against the Italians? Senator Borah. They were not found. Mr. Burdette. There were no indictments made against the Italians, and I thought at the time that the indictments should have been made against the Italians, and I so reported to Capt. Ayis, who was the prosecuting attorney. PAINT CKEEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIBGINIA. 15 Senator Borah. It is a familiar experience upon the part of prosecuting attomeya that grand juries frequently find indictments contrary to hie views? Mr. BuBDETTB. On, yes. Senator Borah. The grand jury is sworn to do its duty vinder its oath? Mr. BuBDETTB. Oh, yes. Senator Borah. And its judgment must control its actions? Mr. BuEDETTE. Yes, sir. Senator Borah. Now, these cases were continued on account of the absence of Dr. Anderson? Mr. BuKDETTE. Yes, sir. Senator Borah. The courts were open all this time, the regular sitting of the court? Mr. BuRDETTE. At the June term. Senator Borah. And they were then open at the regular term in the fall? Mr. BtjRDETTE. We had a term in October. Senator Borah. Whatever terms you would have had, had there been no martial law, you did have, notwithstanding there was martial law? Mr. BuBDETTB. Yes, sir. Senator Borah. Your regular terms came along? Mr. Burdettb. Yes, sir; our regular terms came along. Senator Borah. You had your regular petit juries? Mr. Burdettb. Yes, sir. Senator Borah. And your regular grand jury? Mr. Burdette. Yes, sir. I beg your pardon. Just a moment^ so I can get in the record on that. While the case against these guards was contmued, owing to the absence of Dr. Anderson, Mr. Littlepage, who represented the guards, we all agreed that they had a legal continuance — that is, the guards — ^and we did not very vigorously fight for a trial at that term of the court, because the feeling was very high and it was very doubtful that the State could get a fair trial before a jury. Senator Borah. Speaking with reference to the special grand jury, you thought it might not be a practical proposition to call it at that time? Mr. Burdette. That is the way I felt about it, and I did not feel like burdening the State with the additional expense. What I done was on my own responsi- bility. I put an advertisement in llie papers and I consulted the friends of the miners and I consulted the head of the Baldwin & Felts Detective Agency and I told them we were ready, at any time the evidence was forthcoming, to ask the court for a special grand jury. Senator Borah. And if the evidence had been presented to you, satisfactory to you as the prosecuting attorney, that there were cases there, you would have called for a special grand jury, would you not? Mr. Burdette. I want to say in connection with that, Senator, that the feeling was very high in this community at that time, all over the county, even in the agri- cultural districts, and it was very doubtful that we could have secured an indictment; but, as I say, if we had secured the evidence, we would have made an effort. Senator Borah, If you had had the evidence which satisfied you? Mr. Burdette. Which satisfied me. Senator Borah. But you never did have that evidence? Mr. Burdette. But 1 never did have that evidence. Senator Borah. Then there was no occasion for calling a special grand jury? Mr. Burdette. Why, sure. (S. P. Smith, sheriff of Kanawha County in 1912, testified as follows:) Senator Borah. Was there any feeling here against the State upon the part of the people? Mr. Smith. No; I did not see any. Senator Borah. The feeling was against the mine operators and miners, was it not? Mr. Smith. And against the guards. SenatorBoRAH. There was no feeling against the State as an organization? Mr. Smith. No. , „ /,- ^ i. Senator Borah. Was there any feeling against the State officers here on the part of the people throughout the county, aside from the people who were convicted in this district? , , . , . ^ ^e • i .. -j Mr. Smith. No; I never heard of any threats bemg made against any oflicial outside of districts up there. , ,, ■ ^^ j,- ^ • ^ Senator Borah. Now, these magistrates and constables in the district or zone where this trouble was, was their sympathy with the miners or against them? Mr. Smith. I believe that Squire Eskins's was entirely with the miners; I believ? that Crawford's sympathy was witii the operators. 16 PAINT CEEEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIBGINIA. Senator Borah. How about the constables? Mr. Smith. I do not know about that. Senator Borah. Is it not true that you may file a complaint before any magistrate in this county and have it returnable to any other magistoate in the county? Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; yoii can file a complaint against one magistrate and take him to another district and at the other end of the county. Senator Borah. Then you could have filed a complaint before any of these mag- istrates, whether they were friendly or unfriendly, and upon return being issued you could have taken the man to another magistrate for the purpose of having the pre- l&ninary examination, could you not? Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Mr. Monnett. You can file the original in any township. Mr. Avis. My impression is that a magistrate can not sit for trial outside of his own district. Mr. Belohbe. The law is this, that while a justice of the peace can not go but of his own magisterial district and hear or try cases, yet he can send the person charged before any justice of any magisterial district in the county, there to be tried. Senator Borah. In other words, complaint could have been filed before a magis- trate in the district up there which was affected, and then it could have been trans- ferred to a magistrate in Charleston to have been heard, could it not? Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; it could. Senator Borah. As I understand, the mine owners had a man in that district who was in sympathy with them and the miners had a man in that district who was in sympathy with them. Mr. Smith. That is the way I looked at it. Senator Borah. A man being complained of before either of them could have been taken to a magistrate in this part of the county. Mr. Smith. 1 have always thought and understood that. Senator Borah. Now, did you serve the warrant in the case of Mary Jones, Boswell, Batley, and Paulson? Mr. Smith. My time expired before that time. Senator Borah. You were not an officer at that time? Mr. Smith. No. Senator Borah. You were not officially connected with those arrests in any way? Mr. Smith. No. Senator Borah. I want to ask you this question: In what respect would the declar- ing of martial law aid in the finding of evidence — not, now, in keeping the peace? I can see readily how martial law would be necessary in policing the situation and preventing disturbances, but how would it enable anyone to find evidence with reference to a murder which had been committed? Mr. Smith. I do not see how it would help to find evidence, only in this way, that it would give each side the protection they needed, and they would feel safe in givii^ testimony that they would not give unless they were properly protected. Senator Borah. Then, after martial law was declared^ was tJiere any reason that you knew of why civil officers should not have the same success in finding evidence that the representatives of a military tribunal would have? Mr. Smith. I think they could find the same evidence. You mean while the martial law was on? Senator Borah. While the martial law was on. Mr. Smfth. Yes. Senator Borah. Martial law being declared, and the situation policed, was there any reason that you know of why a civil officer like yourself could not go in there and find evidence just as well as a man who would go in there representing a military tribunal and find evidence? Mr. Smith. No; not if he is allowed to go in there. I believe he could have the same success during martial law. Senator Borah. Now, Mr. Sheriff, what was there that was impracticable about tiie proposition of this evidence being gathered by whoever it was gathered by, whether by you or by a representative of the martial law, being turned over to the prosecuting attorney or theproper civil authorities to be utilized before a grand jury? Mr. Smith. Well, any man, either an officer or a citizen, would have the right to turn |hat evidence over to the grand jury. I think an officer or citizen— I know I would — would feel it would be his duty to do it. Senator Borah. Exactly. After the situation became policed up there by the presence of ttie martial law there was no reason why any evidence that might "be in existence and could be found should not be turned over to the proper civil authori- ties to be submitted to a proper grand jury or proper body to pass upon? PAINT CEEEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIEGINU. 17 Mr. Smith. No; I do not know any reason unless the martial law would prevent your going in and securing the evidence. ^ mT Smra'^Yes ^'^^^^^ ^* ^^^ ^ ^®S*^ proposition that you had no right to go there? Senator Borah. So far as the practical situation is concerned, you see nothing in the way of that proceeding, do you? Mr. Smith. No. But the fact is, and undisputed, that after the declaration of martial law no attempt was had to impanel the grand jury to test the question of the capacity and willingness of the grand jury to act, no civil trial was attempted, and the laws of the State providing for grand juries and the trial of .parties charged with crime were not attempted to be put into operation. We think it is not unfair to say that upon the assumption and presumption that the civil authori- ties could not and would not effectually operate, no attempt was made to test the question. In this connection it is pertinent to call attention to the fact that Gov. Glasscock made the following request, on or about the 16th day of August, in the form of a telegram to Judge Black and also to the county attorney, Capt. S. B. Avis: On account of so many recent violations of law in Kanawha County and the immi- nent danger of further disturbances, I earnestly and most respectfully request you to convene a special grand jury at the earliest possible date to investigate such viola- tions and cause a trial to be had on any indictment that may be returned as speedily as may be consistent with justice and a fair and impartial administration of law. But no special session of the court' and no grand jury were called as the result of this request or at all. We insert here some provisions of the State constitution of the State of West Virginia which seem necessary for a true understanding of the situation: Article 1, section 3: The provisions of the Constitution of the United States and of this State are operative alike in a period of war as in time of peace, and any depar- ture therefrom or violation thereof under the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good government and tends to anarchy and despotism.' Article 3, section 4: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be sus- pended. No person shall be held to answer for treason, felony, or other crime not cognizable by a justice unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury. Article 3, section 14: Trials of crimes and of misdemeanors, unless herein otherwise provided, shall be by a jury of 12 men, pubUc, without unreasonable delay, and in the cotmty where the alleged. offense_ was committed, unless upon petition of the accused, and for good cause shown, it is removed to some other county. In all such trials shall be fairly and plainly informed of the character and cause of the accusa- tion, and be confronted with the witnesses against him, and shall have the assistance of counsel, and a reasonable time to prepare for his defense; and there shall be awarded to him compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. Article 3, section 17: The courts of this State shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him, in his person, property, reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law; and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, or delay. S. Eept. 321, 63-2 2 Senator Martine submitted the following report to the chairman of the subcommittee : January 13, 1914. Hon Claude A. Swanson, Chairman Subcommittee Committee on Education and Labor Paint and Cabin Creek Investigation. Sik: As a member of your subcommittee appointed by the Senate to inquire into the labor distiirbances existmg in the Paint and Cabin Creek sections of West Virginia, and having been specially assigned to that portion of the inqmry relating to interference with the distribution of the United States mails, I do most respectfully report that in my judgment the charge was not well maintained. While there was some delay in distributing mail owing to the strike and gener^ disturbed conditions existing in this district, I found no attempt to suppress the general mail delivery to all legiti- mate patrons of the respective post offices of this district. The presence of armed guards (private), however, naturally excited bitter feehngs, and their presence can not be too strongly condemned. In many instances it was found that these guards loitered around the coal company stores, which stores constituted in the same building the office of the coal company and the post office. I further beg to report, having been assigned to that phase of the investigation regarding the employment of immigrant labor in blocks or on contract from foreign coimtries, that this, too, was found impossible to establish. Though the fact was plainly brought out that labor was hired by agents of the mine owners in the great cities of our country, that the said agents did not teU the men so hired the whole truth of the situation at the place of destination, that in most instances these men were unable to speak or understand our language, the burden of testimony tended only to proye that the transportation of these men was a senous reflection on our boasted civilization. God has blessed West Virginia vsdth prolific hand; a topography frand to contemplate; a wealth unparalleled in coal, iron and oil — er hills fairly groan with undeveloped resources, and all of these at the very threshold of the great marts of trade and commerce of our country. Here, above all sections, should peace, plenty, and happi- ness reign supreme. On the contrary, your comnuttee found disorder, riot, bitterness, and bloodshed in their stead. In no spirit of malice or hatred, but with a view that the country, through knowledge of the true conditions, may right the wrong, I charge that the hiring of armed bodies of men oy private mine ovmers and other corporations and the use of steel armored trains, machine guns, and bloodhounds on defenseless men, women, and children is but a little way removed from barbarism. To the end of making impossible the recurrence of such methods I earnestly urge the speedy passage of Senate bill No. 2741, which was introduced by me on July 14, 1913 — the first session of the present Congress. 18 PAINT CEEEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIRGINIA. 19 Asked what is my solutiou of this and simUar imhappy conditions, I would state: A millionaire owner of a great section of the State of West Virginia calmly admitted on the witness stand that so long as he got his per ton lease he never inquired further. Our duty imder the premises: Coal, imder our civilization is a necessity. Tms great commodity can not be increased a fraction of a pound, yet our popula- tion is multiplying by leaps and bounds each year, thereby in- creasing the demands for this article. We must have warmth for our bodies and fuel with which to cook our foods. With this con- dition existing and, with avarice as the dominating characteristic in man, I, at the risk of criticism by my many friends and countrymen, unhesitatingly say that Government ownership of the mines is the only hope or solution for those who may come after us. Every instance of Government or municipal ownership and control has resulted in lowering the rate cost to the people, bettering the service, reducing the hours of labor for those employed and better pay for the toiler. These thoughts are not a dream of to-day but of many years of thought and consideration. My recent investigation -into condi- tions in the Paint and Cabin Creek strike, with all the attendant horrors, has confirmed my thoughts into fixed judgment. I full well realize the magnitude of this proposition and also the results and blessings that would follow such action. As to working out of the details of this step, it wiU require much consideration and deliberation, which, I feel sure, may safely be left to the Congress of the United States. Respectnilly submitted. James E. Mabtine. Senator Kenyon submitted the following report to the chairman of the subcommittee: In the sixth division of the resolution the commit;tee were directed to investigate and report' whether or not firearms, ammunition, and explosives had been shipped into the coal fields with the purpose to exclude the products of such coal fields from competitive marKets in interstate trade; and if so, by whom, and by whom paid for. The facts disclosed by the investigation are not sufficient for the com- mittee to report specifically as to this. Machine guns, rifles, and shotguns were shipped in for the purposes of the strike and appar- ently by both sides to the controversy, but whether this has been with a purpose to exclude the products of said coal fields from com- petitive markets in interstate trade the committee is unable to say. The committee was directed to investigate and report the causes leading up to the conditions in the Paint Creek and Cfabin Creek coal fields of West Virginia. Our endeavor has been to make a thorough investigation of these causes and, while there are apparent surface causes, the fundamental, underlying cause is, to the mind of some members of the committee, apparent. The conditions found by the committee as existing on Cabin and Paint Creeks — the employment of mine guards and arming them to go out to shoot and kill the employees, the arming of employees likewise to go out and shoot and kill their employers — is a condition that can not continue to exist in a free Republic It is well to inquire as to the reasons for such deplorable conditions. Many things appear on the surface which might be deemed causes, but they are only surface indications of a deeper trouble. A reading of the record will lead one to the belief that there were many causes for the conditions existing. Among them might be related the employment of mine guards, high prices charged the miners at company stores, mine guards acting as deputy sheriffs, post offices located in company stores, private ^ roads to the schools and stores, no opportunity to purchase homes, cemeteries upon company grounds, attempts to unionize the miners, alien ownership of large tracts of land — in one instance 21,000 acres. All of these various thmgs appearing in the testimony might be cited as causes leading up to the conditions which the committee investi- gated. However, it is the opinion of some of the committee that the cause of all this trouble is deeper and more fundamental. The basic cause is the private ownership of great public necessities, such as coal; this coupled with human greed, incident to such ownership, has brought about the deplorable and un-American conditions m the West Virginia coal fields under investigation. Bishop Donahue was asked the question as to what was the fun- damental trouble. He answered that the causes were deep rooted and very obscure to a man unless he thinks, and thinks, and thinks, and traces the roots down into their primary causes. Quoting from the bishop: I should Bay if I were asked to put it very briefly that it ia human greed on both 20 PAINT GREEK "coal FIELDS OF WEST VIBGINIA. 21 It is a little difficult to realize how there can be much human greed on the side of a man who is supporting a famUy and working day by day in the mines at ordinary living wages, but there is greed on the part of the owners of the property, and there always will be such greed. There are apparently more labor troubles in mining Eroperties than in any other line of bujsiness, and all of these trou- les are leading more or less to the dissipation of the coal of the countiy. If the Government should take over the coal properties of the country, in some manner, of course, to be provided by law, whereby reasonable compensation would be made therefor, and itself lease these coal properties, maintaining a strict governmental regulation over the same, the question of labor troubles in relation thereto would doubtless be solved. The element of profit in those things that should be for the benefit of all the people would be, to some extent, eliminated. We do not find strikes among postal clerks and Government employees. There is no good reason why great public utilities and public necessities such as coal — essential to the life and comfort of the people — should not be held by the Government for the use and benefit of all the peojjle, and the ownership of the same should not be an instrumentality in the making of great profits and fortunes. So that, in investigating the seventh division of the resolution, the committee has been led to the behef that the private ownership of these great coal properties, with the attendant human greed, is the underlying cause of the conditions such as the record shows existed in the Paint and Cabin Creek coal fields. Wm. S. Kenyon, Senator Shields submitted the following report to the chairman of the subcommittee : The fifth section of Senate resolution 37, imder which this report is made, is in these words : Investigate and report to what extent the conditions existing in said coal fields in West Viiginia have been caused by agreements and combinationa entered into contrary to the laws of the United States for the purpose of controlling the production, sale, and transportation of the coal of these fields. The investigation directed by this section concerns certain charges ■ made by the Paint Creek Collieries and others, coal operators ia West Virginia, that B. F. Chapman and others, coal operators, hav- mg their mines and doing business in the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and western Pennsylvania, acting in concert for their com- mon interest, conspired and combined with WiUliam Green and others, coal miners residing in the same States and members and officers of the United Mine Workers of America, an unincorporated organiza- tion of miners in America, to restrain and monopolize interstate com- merce in coal in the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and certain territory along the shores of the Great Lakes in the United States and British America, and in the State of West Virginia, by suppressing the importation and sale in the States first named of coal mined in the State of West Virginia, to be done by increasing the cost of mining and decreasing the production of coal in that State, for which purpose William Green and others agreed to organize the miners in that State, and especially those employed on Cabin Creek and Paint Creek, and induce them to become members of the United Mine Workers of America, and that the disturbed con- ditions on Cabin Creek and Paint Creek were the direct causa of efforts upon the part of the said parties so combining, conspiring, and confederating to carry their unlawful arrangement, agreement, and contract into effect. This unlawful arrangement and combination is charged to have been first made in a joint conference of the coal operators, or their representatives, of the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and the western district of Pennsylvania, and the coal miners of those States, or their representatives, held in Chicago January, 1898, and renewed and continued in biannual conferences held thereafter ■ by the same parties, the last one at Cleveland, Ohio, in March, 1912, shortly previous to the beginning of the strike and disturbances on Paint Creek and Cabin Creek. The consideration of the contract moving to the miners being a reduction of working hours from 10 to 8 hours a day, and an increase of 1 cents per ton for coal mined, and sub- sequent increases of the same characterr The proceedings of aU of these conferences, except the one held in 1898, seem to have been reported by stenographers and printed in pamphlet form by authority of the operators and miners, liberal excerpts from which are in evidence. There is no con- troversy but that the keenest competition has existed for some time between the coal fields of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and western 22 PAINT OBEEK COAL FIELDS OE WEST VIEGINLA. 23 Pennsylvania and those of West Virginia in the markets we have motioned. The coal found in West Virginia is susceptible of being mined much cheaper md is of a superior quality to that found in the other States. The production of coal in this State has increased from 6,000,000 tons m 1888 to 70,000,000 in 1912, and nine-tenths of this output was being sold in competition with that of the four States above stated, notwithstanding transportation charges greatly to the prejudice of the West Virginia operators. The hurtful character of this competition to the other fields abundantly appears in the record. It also appears that the coal miners in the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and western Pennsylvania have been for some years members of the United Mine Workers of America, and that the organization had obtained but little foothold in the coal fields of West Virginia. We think, considering the view we have taken of this question, that it is proper to incorporate in this report some of the evidence sub- mitted to the committee. The coal operators of West Virginia allege that the unlawful agree- ment charged to have been made is covertly contained in section 8 of the contract made between the operators and miners at Chicago, in January, 1898, which is in these words: That the United Mine Workers' organization, a party to this contract, do hereby further agree to afford all possible protection to the trade and to the other parties hereto a,gainst any unfair competition resulting from the failure to maintain scale rates. They charge that the contract and agreement was thus vaguely worded and not fully stated in the record in order to conceal its wrongful and imlawful purposes, and that much was left to the verbal understanding of the parties at the time, and they rely upon state- ments made by the operators and miners, respectively, in subsequent joiat conferences, interpreting and admitting the agreement, some of which we will here state. Mr. Maurer, an Ohio operator, ia a carefully prepared statement, read in the conference held in 1910, said: The chief evil was the fact that districts which did not recognize the United Mine Workers and had no agreement with them, produced coal much more cheaply than these districts which sustained contractual relations with that organization. » * * In order to correct these most harmful conditions, a joint convention of operators and miners of western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, at the solicitation of the miners' officials, was called to meet in Chicago, in January, 1898. At this con- vention an interstate joint agreement was established. * * * The granting of the 8-hour day by the operators, after making these other numerous important con- cessions, was with the distinct understanding and explicit promise of the miners to give to the operators of the four contracting States adequate protection agaitist the competition of unorganized fields. From year to year they have been called upon to fulfill that promise. - The operators, parties to that agreement, at the time of its exe- cution felt fliat it was absolutely necessary to the safety of their investments that they be protected from the encroachments upon them by their competitors of the unor- ganized fields. * * * It is very evident to any candid observer that such unfair conditions should not be imposed on the operators and miners of the unionized ter- ritory That the interests of operators and miners are mutual in every respect does not admit of controversy. Each is equaUy concerned in rescuing this busmess from ' F^Uy, we^ask for the fulfillment of the pledge of 1898 upon which we made to fte miners so many important and costly concessions. Though that promise has not been kept we have continued for twelve years to make additional concessions by in- creasing tlie mining price from 66 cents, agreed upon at that time, to 90 cents, and m Other respects conceding demands without any compensatmg concessions upon the 24 PAINT CEEEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIEGINIA. part of the minera, until we now find ouraelves at the limit of financial safetj. The operatorg can make no further concession. It is now, in our view, not onlyto the interests of the miners but their duty as well to do their share to meet these conditions. It has been set forth as the controlling reason for an increased price for mining that the cost of living has increased during the last few years. It is not fair, equitable, or reasonable to belieVe that by making conditions in all competing districts equal the districts which are parties to this agreemeot will benefit by a laiger number of days' employment, and thus the earning capacity of the miners of our district be largely increased. , , , ,, We believe this to be a true statement of facts, and therefore call upon you to reheve us as well as yourselves from the unfortunate situation in which we now find ourselves, due to the failure of the miners' organization to keep the faith pledged at Chicago in 1898. , , ,. . We therefore insist that your organization place the districts, parties to this agree- ment, on the same relative basis as the unorganized districts with which we are com- pelled to compete. (Record, p. 1977-1978.) Mr. Green, who at the time was president of the United Mine Work- ers of Ohio, replied to this statement, sajdng: Our friend, Mr. Maurer, in the well-prepared statement he has submitted to this convention, referred to an obligation he claims was assumed by the United Mine Workers of America in the meeting at Chicago in 1898. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we agreed that to a certain extent that was right; but I do not believe it was ever under- stood that one party to tliis contract was obligated exclusively to carry out that prom- ise. I believe it was intended to be a mutual understanding, and that both sides would cooperate in trying to organize West Virginia and other nonunion districts in order to extend this business-like basis of adjusting the differences to those fields. Let me point to the fact that the United Mine Workers of America have diligently and agressively attempted to carry out the promise made in Chicago in 1898; that they have done everything in their power to redeem any promise they may have made to organize West Virginia. Since 1898 our organization has at various times spent hun- dreds of thousands of dollars trying to unionize West Virginia. We have'also sacri- ficed human life in the attempt to redeem that promise. In view of the fact that we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and that our organizers, our members who have gone there as missionaries in an attempt to redeem that promise, have sacri- ficed their lives and their liberties, we should be given credit for what we have done. I want to ask the operators how much money they nave spent and what they have done to aid us to organise West Virginia. (Record, p. 1978.) Mr. Chapman, another Ohio operator, in the joint conference of March, 1912, said: When we met in Chicago in 1898 and reestablished the interstate movement the competition from nonunion fields was the element, gentlemen, that entered into negotiations in the adoption of the scale that was made there. It was agreed to by both sides, and the question also of the ability of the miner to earn a fair day's wage for the labor he performed entered into it. At that time the miners were receiving 56 cents per ton for producing coal. I made motions in that convention that increased the day-wage scale. It was understood in that convention, although it was not placed in the agreement, that the miners of the competitive field of the four States were to bring the nonunion fields up to the price paid for mining in those States, and unless they secured the adoption of an 8-hour day at the next convention, the competitive field was to be relieved of these burdens. That was not in the agreement. Unfortunately, gentle- men, the proceedings of that convention were not published. If they were published, it would be found that the president of the United Mine Workers and the gentlemen who aided and assisted him in bringing about the results there agreed that they should be relieved. * * * And the question of the prices of coal and the competition that existed were the sole questions that entered into the discussion there. * * * The State from which the keenest competition comes has increased its production 350 per cent, or 25 per cent annually for the 14 years; and Ohio, the State that is the mother of the organization, the State whose operators have ever been loyal to the organization, has increased barely 10 per cent a year. That is the record of our State, while this one State has increased annually for 14 years, taking the average of 25 per cent, and more than doubled the output of Ohio coal. * * * And if the nonunion fields continue to increase as they have been doing, there will be no coal interests remaining in Ohio. In some districts oi Ohio half the, miners have, left and have gone to the nonunion fields. And more are going — more are going. (Record, p. 1979.) PAINT GREEK COAL FIELDS OP WEST VIEGINIA. 25 Mr. John P. White, who was then president of the United Mine Workers, and present in the conference, evidently replying for the miners to the statement of Mr. Chapman, said: We are as anxious to establish the organization in West Virginia fields and the other nonunion fields as the gentlemen on the other side of the house are to have us do so. But constantljr holding that State up to ridicule will not help us do it. I believe, on the contrary, it will militate against a final solution of that proposition. As has been pointed out times without number, West Virginia has no markets within the State, ana if it were thoroughly organized, of necessity it w ould have to find markets cutside the confines of its own Commonwealth. Nature "has favored the little nioantain State with an inexhaustible vein of coal of high quality and good mining condi tions, but the operators there have been successful in defeating the aims and parposea of the United Mine Workers to a large extent, although no one can deny that under the various administrations of the organization every effort has been put forth to try to break down the conditions that are complained of here by the other side. (Kecord, p. 1979.) Mr. Walker, the president of the Illinois Miners' Association, also said: Our desire is that every man who works in a mine in this country shall become a meinber of our organization, and before you make progress that will have to come. You should be as willing, you should be as anxious aa we are, if not more so, to gi\e at least sufficient of an increase in wages and sufficient improvement in conditions to make the strongest incentive possible under the circumstances to induce those men to come into our organization. And if that is done, instead of hiring guards to keep our organization from being established over there you should do what you can to get the organization established. I know it will mean the giving up of a few dollars; -there is no question about that. (Eecord,pp. 1979, 1980.) Mr. Maurer, of Ohio, was also in the meeting of March, 1912, and and in speaking of the miners in Ohio, said: They are the people who have to meet with us the brunt of the competition frbm the nonunion States. They know it is there, and I feel they are willing, or should be willing, to give it every consideration. * * * I want to repeat what I said some time ^o in this meeting — ^when West Virginia gets a foothold she never lets go. Last year Ohio dropped back between four and five mUlion tons ia her production. Western Pennsj^vania dropped back in her production. Did West Virginia drop back in her production? Did she meet this falling off ia demand? If she did, gentle- men, she did it in the East; and the reports show that while she increased from four to five mUlion tons in her production, her shipments East decreased 2 per cent and her shipments West increased 17 per cent, showing conclusively that not the four or five million tons Ohio lost only, not what Pennsylvania lost only, but added to that the whole increase went into our markets. * * * The four millions cf coal that West Virginia took from Ohio last year, means a loss of $3,000,000 to the miners. * * * I say again the increase you got in Cincinnati benefited you none. Here is the record. West Virginia increased her tonnage 10,000,000 tons in 1910. In 1911 Ohio lost 4,000,000 tons and West Virginia's tonnage went up to 5,000,000- 19 per cent of that increase went west into your markets and into ours. Now it has been chaiged by the other side of the house that we are responsible for West Virginia's conditions. * * * In 1898, when we started this movement, the competition from West Virginia was 600,000 tons. * * * Let organized labor announce to capital, to WaU Street, if you please, to the great railroad corporations, the operators of Ohio and Pennsylvania have commenced to fight — that are independent, that are not controlled by the railroads or anybody else— "we are going to stand with them shoulder to shoulder, and every time you invest a dollar in nonunion States, we are going to help wrest it away from you. We will help through the government, we will help our operators through our votes." When you commence that policy you will commence to make that long productive line m West Virginia that has been growing crumble and shrivel away. * » * I don't like to hear men on that side of the house, with these conditions actually staring them m the face, with that line indicated growing and growing and growing— I don't like to hear them state, "We are ready to strike for our rights." I want you to say, "We are ready to strike for our rights " and include this side of the house. We are domg our duty; we are fight- ing to prevent' West Virginia increasing her tonnage, and if you treat some of your ororators in this field with the consideration they are entitled to, you might get those same operators to treat you with the same consideration when you come over to West Virginia. (Record, pp. 1980-1981.) 26 PAINT CHEEK COAL FIELbS Of WEST VIEGINIA. Mr. Penna, another operator present at this meeting, said;?- It does not matter how much we want to reach the time when this vicious compe- tition can be regulated, if not destroyed; that time is not here, and we aie up to-day against unbridled competition as far as we are concerned. * * * We are up against i£is competition; there is no use trying to get away from it. In your nonunion fields your men work 10 hours a day as a minimum, and the maximum is unmentioned — any- where from that to 25. For 10 hours the day men get about $1.50, and if they work 12 or 14 hours a day they may get a little more. I don't know whether they do or not. The coal is weighed or measured, and our experience has usually been that when coal is measured in coal cars, those cars seldom get any smaller. And you say you can not organize those people, and their product goes into direct competition with ours. One reason you can not organize them is because they have certain methods to which they resort to prevent organization. * * * And I say to you that were I an operator and had it in my power, L would resort to any method to keep any trade union out of my mines rather than submit to the galling meddlesomeness such aa we have had dis- played here on the floor to-day on the part of Illinois. * * * It is a fear on the part of tiiose people of the effects of trade unionism as seen in places in this central com- petitive field that prevents your union getting a foothold in those nonunion districts. * * * They are afraid of it, and properly so. * * * Organize those Virginians and organize the Kentuckians, organize central Pennsylvania, and then move up together. Level up and then move, but don't keep moving the highest; (Record, p. 1981.) Mr. McDonald, the secretary and treasurer of the Illinois United Mine Workers, said: We have had thousands of men to go to the penitentiary for trying to establish our organization in West Virginia and other nonunion fields, and not only have they gone to the penitentiary, but they have been beaten up and slaughtered * * *. The most unfortunate of the matter is that some of the concerns who have fought us hardest there will come across the border line and shake hands witi us in Ohio and Indiana and Illinois. If you are really sincere in your fear of the competition from West Virginia, I think you could join hands with us in two ways. You might first induce those in this movement to withdraw their opposition down there andnelp us do something with the political powers that prevent us from going there. I don't know of one instance on record where that has been done by one coal company or operators' association north of the Ohio River * * *. So far as the competition of West Virginia is concerned, you people have about as much chance and could help about as much to eliminate that competition as we can if you would say to the con- cerns that in the interstate movement that they will either do business all over the country or they will not do business at all. If you would use your influence with those politicians in West Virginia who have joined hands with the corporations to drive our men out of_ there and beat them up, it might be of some help. In fact, I am inclined to believe it is a handy weapon for you to have every time we meet to be able to point out to West Virginia. There is no question that there are mep sitting here who are doing business in West Virginia. It looks as thou^ it is a mighty handy proposition to have * * *. We have had men go to jail. We expect that more of us will go to ]ail. The penitentiary does have no terrors for us, as far as that is concerned. And if putting two or three hundred of om: men in jail will organize West Virginia, we will send two or three hundred down. The chances are that we will have to get busy with that situation shortly. (Rec, p. 1982, 2032.) ' Mr. Maurer, of Ohio, in the conference of 1912, further said: When you go back over 10 years and see the vast inroads of West Virginia in the markets which belong to you and to us, because of our geographical position, can youtell us how we are going to prevent it on this side? We can not say to the operatore of West Virginia, 'Get more for your coal," because they are forcing their coal into our markets, and every ton of our coal that is displaced is displaced by a ton of West Virginia coal. _ West Virginia is growing, and in order to grow she must drive you and me out of business or she can grow no more. And the same is true of Kentucky. Ihere is only so much demand for coal, and while year after year the great demand 18 increasing and the product is increasing, yet West , Virginia and Kentucky are growing and growing and doubling their output, while we are barely crawling along, and we are getting no benefit from that increase and never can get any benefit from it until we stop this competition. = j There may be competition among ourselves and there is bound to be competition as long aa our markets are being taken from us day after day and day after day by the PAINT CREEK COAL WELDS 01" WEST VIKGINIA. 2*7 Eroduct of these nonunion States, and the operators are absolutely and unconditionally etoless. If we get any relief it must be the relief that we can work out between us, aijmner share of the market. We are sensible enough to realize that West Virgmia, fn order to sell her coal production, must find a market outside the borders of its own Commonwealth. If I am correctly iuformed, less than 10 per cent of the coal nmdured is sold to home consumpUon. Therefore it would be forei^ to our pur- pose and we would be repudiated by our people, to come to West Virgmia, even lY wP were able to and build a scale here which would be prohibitive as agamst oiir miners and woiild not be subscribed to by them. We are interested to see tiie West V^rinia miners and operators arrive at a settlement of their difficulty t^at will enable them to have their markets; and where the other States have advanced 86 PAINT CREEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIRGINIA. the condition of employment — the short working day and recognized the .irigjits of the miners, and brighten their lives— we want to see West Virginia do ^e same. We have no ulterior motive whatever upon the coal fields of .West Virginia. We want to see the children of the miners enjw the schoolhouses and playgrounds. We want the miners to have a better home. We want to see the influence of the church and other institutions radiate throughout this community. (Rec, p. 2174-2175.) The witness repeats and elaborates this denial in absolute terms. The purposes of the United Mine Workers of America, as set forth in their constitution, and referred to by the witness, are these: First. To imite in one organization, regardless of creed, color, or nationality, all workmen eligible for membership employed in and around coal mines, coal washers, and coke ovens on the American continent. ^ Second. To increase wages and improve the conditions of employment of our members by legislation, conciliation, joint agreements, or strikes. (Rec, p. .) Mr. White was present at the joint conference held at Cleveland,, Ohio, in 1912, and was asked in regard to a statement he made there as follows : Mr. Knight: Q. I find you are quoted in a speech at the Cleveland conference as saying that: "We are as anxious to establish the organization in the West Virginia field and lie other nonunion fields as the gentlemen on the other side of the house (the operators) are to have us do so. We have had this pointed out times without number, that West Virginia has no markets within the State, and, if it were thoroughly organized as sug- fested, it would have to find a market outside the confines of its own Commonwealth. Tature has favored the little mountain State with an inexhaustible vein of coal of high quality and good mining conditions. The operators there have been successful in defeating the aim and purpose of the United Mine Workers to a large extent, although no one can deny that, under the various administrations of the organization, every effort has been put forth to try to break down the conditions that are complained of here by the other side." Did you say that? — A. Yes. Q. What did you mean by the statement, "that under the various administrations of the organization every effort had been put forth to break down the conditions complained of here by the other side?" — ^A. I meant that we had put forth every legitimate and honorable effort to establish the organization for a shorter working day, for check weighmen, and other conditions in order that competitive relations might be maintained and recognizing the fact that West Virginia had long been known as part of the competitive field. The operators on the other side, some of them owning mines in West Virginia and other States, were complaining about the unfair attitude of our organization in constantly trying to hold them up for a further advance in wages, or, in other words, seeking to convey that we were just simply fighting the efforts of the organization of operators there. They said you were a part of me central competitive field and we were not trying to do anything to put you on a relative basis with the other States. We have tried to get operators who own coal mines to take a sensible view of this thing. The instance that incited me or prompted me to make that remark was due to the fact that they were trying to defend themselves against advancing our wages. ^ As I stated awhile ago, they will not only go to West Virginia, but anywhere to defeat the miner in getting more than he can be held down to. Q. By "breaking down these conditions"' you meant bringing West Virginia up on a wage scale, did you not?— A. Yes; taking into consideration West Virginia's ability to market ite coal, its freight rates, its physical conditions of mining, and the productive power of the miners. All things considered, in other words, to try to place West Virginia's labor market on a par with the competitive fields. It did not mean that we would exact the same prices, but we would first have to go into the mines and find out what the conditions were. Q. You do not mean that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and western Pennsylvania now regard the West Virginia wage scale as entirely too low?— A. I do not know the opinion the operators have, save and except as I have stated, but they were trying to keep us to a lower standard, and when we cited the fact of the increased cost of living it prompted us to make a demand for a further increase in wages, and they pointed to tlie fact that their wages were relatively higher from a competitive standpoint than West Virginia, and that we were doing nothing to bring them up to what we were trying to exact from those operators. (Record, pp. 2187-2188.) PAINT CREEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIRGINIA. 37 There is also evidence in the record that a number of coal operators of Ohio were also_ engaged in the business in West Virginia and were opposed to the unionizing of the miners in their employ in that State, thus tending to controvert the charge that they were combining with others against the West Virginia operators. The authorities which the coal operators of West Virginia have cited to sustain their contention, that the agreement and combina- tion which they charge was made and attempted to be carried into execution was and is in violation of the Sherman antitrust law, pro- . hibiting combinations in restraint of interstate commerce, and for the purpose of creating monopolies of such commerce, are as follows: Clune V. United States (159 U. S., 590), in which it is said: The rules of law relating to the lesponsibility of individual members concerned in such combination and conspiracy are plain and well defined. Great latitude in establishing conspiracy by the admiasion of circumstantial evidence is allowed, cir- cumstances tending in slight degree to a determinatiou of the trust are allowed to be proved. American Fur Co. v. United States (2 Pet., 358), it is held: Where two or more are associated together for the same illegal purpose, any act or declaration of one of the parties, in reference to the common object, and forming a part of the res gestae, in its execution, may be given in evidence against the others. In United States v. Union P. R. Co. (226 U. S., 61), it is said: The act is intended to reach combinations and conspiracies which restrain freedom of action in interstate trade and commerce, and unduly suppress or restrict the play of competition in the conduct thereof. * * * And referring to the case of Northern Securities Co. (193 U. S., 197), the court says: It was there held that the transfer to a holding company of the stock of two com- peting interstate railroads, thereby effectually destroying the power which had there- tofore existed to compete upon interstate commerce, was a restraint upon such com- merce, and Mr. Justice Harmn, announcing the affirmance of the decree of the circuit court said: " In all the prior cases in this court the antitrust act has been construed as forbidding any combination which, by its necessary operation, destroys or restricts free compe- tition among those engaged in interstate commerce; in other words, that to destroy or restrict free competition in interstate commerce was to restrain such commerce. • * «>' Of the Sherman Act and kindred statutes, this court, speaking through Mr. Justice McKenna in National Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas (197 U. S., 115), further said: According to them, competition, not combination, should be the law of trade. If there is evU in this, it is accepted as less than that which may result from the unifica- tion of interest, and the power such unification gives. And that legislatures may so ordain this court has decided. * * * , , ^^, , , ■ ^^ ,. . ^ We take it therefore that it may be regarded as settled, applying the statute as con- strued in the decisions of this court, that a combination which places railroads engaged in interstate commerce in such relations as to create a single dominating control in one corporation, whereby natural and existing competition in interstate commerce is unduly restricted or suppressed, is within the condemnation of the act. It is the scope of such combinations and their power to suppress or stifle competition or create monopoly which determines the applicability of the act. In speaking of the acts which constitute restraints of interstate commerce, the court says: It creates a combination which restrains interstate commerce within the meaning of the statute, because, in destroying or greatly abndging the free operation of compe- tition theretofore existing, it tends to higher rates. 38 PAINT CEEEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIRGINIA. It is tbe scope of audi combinations and their power to suppress or stifle competi- tion or create monopoly which determines the applicability of the act. * *,>-^ In determining the validity of this combination, we have a right to look Aso to the intent and purpose of those who conducted the transactions from which it arose, and to the objects had in view. In United States v. Patten (226 U. S., 525) the court said: Section 1 of the act, upon which the counts are founded, is not confined to voluntary restraints, as where persons engaged in interstate trade or commerce agree to suppress competition among themselves, but includes as well involuntary restraints, as Trtiere persons not so engaged conspire to compel action by others, or to create artificial con- ditions, which necessarily impede or burden the due course of such trade or commerce, or restrict the Common liberty to engage therein. * * * Bearing in mind that such was the nature, object, and scope of the conspiracy, we regard it as altogether plain that, by its necessary^ operation, it would directly and ma- terially impede and burden the due course of trade and commerce among the States, and therefore inflict upon the public the injuries which the antitrust act is designed to prevent. * * * And that there is no allegation or a specific intent to restrain such trade or commerce does not make against this conclusion, for, as is shown by prior decisions of this court, the conspirators must be held to have intended the necessary and direct consequences of their acts, and cannot be heard to say to the contrary. In other words, by purposely engaging in a conspiracy which necessarily and directly produces the result which the statute is designated to prevent, they are, in legal con- templation, chargeable with intending that result. It hardly needs statement that the character and effect of a conspiracy are not to be judged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts, but only by looking at it as a whole. (W. W. Montague & Co. ■«. Lowry, 194 Ut S., 38 * * *.) The act for which Patten was indicted was brought within the statute's condemnation for the reason that — It operated to thwart the usual operation of the law of supply and demand to with- draw the commodity from the normal current of trade, to enhance the price artificially, to hamper users and consumers in satisfying their needs, and to produce practically the same evils as does the suppression of competition. It was the right of the defendant to prescribe the terms upon which the services of Coppage (the discharged employee) would be accepted, and it was the right of Coppage to become or not, as he chose, an employee of the railroad company upon the terms offered to him. Mr. Cooley in this treatise on Torts, page 278, well says: "It is a part of every man's civil rights that he be left at liberty to refuse business relations with any person whomsoever, whether the refusal rest upon reason or is the result of whim, caprice, prejudice, or malice. With his reasons neither the public nor third persons have any legal concern. It is also his right to have business relations with anyone with whom he can make contracts, and if he is wrongfully deprived of this right by others he is entitled to redress. The general right to make a contract in relation to business is part of the liberty of the individual protected by the fourteenth amend- ment of the Federal Constitution." (Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S., 578.) Of course the liberty of contract relating to labor includes both parties tx) it — the one has as much right to purchase as the other has to sell labor. It is not wiliiin the functions of government, at least in the absence of contract between the parties, to compel any person in the course of his business and against his will to accept or retain the personal services of another, or to compel any person against hie will to perform personal services for another. It was the legal nght of the defendant Adair to discharge Coppage because of his being a member of a labor organizationj as it was the legal right of Clop- page if he saw fit to do so to quit the services in which he was engaged because the defendant employed some persons who were not members of a labor organization. In United States v. Reading (226 U. S., 324), the court says: The scheme as a whole seems to us to be within reach of the law. The constituent elements as we have stated them are enough to give to the scheme a body, and for all that we can say, to accomplish it. Moreover, whatever we may think of them separately, when we take them up as distinct charges they are alleged sufficiently as elements of the scheme. It is suggested that the several acts charged are lawful and that intent can make no difference. But they are bound together as the parts of a single plan. The plan may make the parts imlawful. * » * The mere fact that the sales and deliveries took place iii Pennsylvania is not con- trolling when, as here, the expectations was that the coal would, for the most part, PAINT CBEEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIEGINIA. 39 fall into and become a part of the well-known current of commerce between the mines and the general consuming markets of other States. Commerce among these States is not a technical legal conception, but a practical one, drawn from the course of business. (Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S., 386, 398; Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S., 274.) The purchase and delivery within the State was but one step in a plan and purpose to control and dominate trade and commerce in other States for an illegal purpose. As was said by the Chief Justice in Loewe v. Lawlor, cited above: "Although some of the means whereby the interstate traffic was to be destroyed were acts within a State, and some of them were in themselves, as a part of their obvious purpose and effect, beyond the scope of Federal authority, still, as we have seen, the acts must be considered as a whole, and the plan is open to condemnation, notwithstanding a negligible amount of interstate business might be affected in carry- ing it out. If the purpose of the combination were, as alleged, to prevent any inter- state transportation at all, the fact that the means operated at one end before physical transportation commenced and at the other end after the physical transportation ended was immaterial." Whether a particular act, contract, or agreement was a reasonable and normal method in furtherance of trade and commerce may, In doubtful cases, turn upon the intent to be inferred from the extent of the control thereby secured over the com- merce affected, as well as by the method which was used. Of course, if the neces- sary resxilt is materially to restrain trade between the States, the intent with which the thing was done is of no consequence. But when there is only a probabiUty, the intent to produce the consequences mav become iniportant. (United States v. Ter- minal R. Assn., 224 U. S., 383, 394; Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S., 375.) In the instant case the extent of the control over the Umitod supply of anthracite coal by means of the great proportion theretofore owned or controlled by the defend- ant companies and the extent of the contr jI acquired over the independent output, which constituted the only competing supply, affords evidence of an intent to sup- press that competition and of a purpose to unjltily restrain the freedom of production, transportation, and sale of the article at tide- water markets. Gompers v Bucks Stove & Range Co. (221 U. S., 438), the court said: In Loewe v. Lawlor (208 U. S., 274) the statute was held to apply to any unlawful combination resulting in restraint of interstate pommerce. In that case the damages sued for were occasioned by acts which, among other tilings, did not include the cir- culation of advertisements. But the principle announced by the court was general. It covered any illegal means by which interstate commerce is restrained, whether by unlawful combinations of capital or unlawful combinations of labor, and we think, also, whether the restraint be occasioned by tmlawful contracts, trusts, pooling arrange- ments, black lists, boycotts, coercion, threats, intimidation, and whether these be made effective, in whole or in part, by acts, words, or printed matter. The court's protection and restraining powers extend to every device whereby property is irreparably damaged or commerce Is illegally restrained. To hold that Hie restraint of trade under Qie Sherman Antitrust Act or on general principles of law could be enjoined, but that the means through which the restraint was accom- plished could not be enjoiaed, would be to render the law impotent. Referring to labor organizations, it is here further said: But this very fact that it is lawful to form these bodies with multitudes of members, means that they have thereby acquiied a va^f power in the presence of which the in- , dividual may be helpless. This power when unlawfully used against one can not be met except by his purchasing peace at the co^t of submitting to terms .which involve the sacrifice of rights protected by the Constitution, or by standing on such rights and aDcealing to the preventive powers of a court of equity. When such appeal is made it IS the duty of government to protect the one against the many as well as the many against the one. Loewe v. Lawlor (208 U. S., 302). It is held in this case, that the law prohibiting agreements in restraint of trade — Includes combinations of labor, as well as of capital; in fact, all combinations in rPRtoaint of commerce without reference to the character of the.persons who entered i^t/i^them It is true this statute has not been much expounded by judges, but as it BPPmH to me its meaning, as far as it relates to the sort of combinations to which it is to apply is manifest, and that it includes combinations which are composed of labor- ers acting in the interest of laborers. 40 PAINT CEEBK COAL FIELDS OP WEST VIEGINIA. It is the successful effort of the combination of the defendants to intimidate and over- awe others, who were at work in conducting or carrying on the commerce bi the country in which the court finds their error and their violation of the statute. United States v. Patterson (201 Fed., 711, 712), it is said: If the purpose is to injiirfr fte^^ubjiciip limiting or Buppressing competition'and its right of individuals to contract, tiijfereby eiihancing prices and bringing about monopoly in whole or in part, or tending to do either, then such contract or acts were held under the changed condition of things to be in restraint of trade. * * *. FromThe decisions in the Standard Oil case and the Tobacco case, and the cases in the Supreme Court involving the antitrust act, and the evolution of the common law (omitting the many citations of authorities), to irieet modern conditions and not unduly restrain, but to encourage trade, it may be said that a contract, combination, or conspiracy, is in restraint of trade when it directly effects trade, and is entered into with intent to do wrong to the general public and to individuals by restraining the flow of commerce, and by bringing about, or tending to bring about, the mainteilance ot enhancement of prices which but for such acts, would adjust themselves under condi- tions of free competition. The icontention and authorities in support thereof reUed upon by the counsel for the United Mine Workers of America, or the mem- bers thereof charged to have mftde the alleged imlawful agreement, axe in the language df the brief ffled, as follows: The miners' o^SJaization exists for the sole purpose of bettering the conditions of employment. It is not a -monopoly. Labor is not the subject of monopoly. While it might be conceded that labor conizations might be proper subjects of legislative control and regulation, yet the legislature has not in its wisddm seen proper to do so; and at common law personal service — an occupation— cottld not be the subject of monopoly. In discussing that question in the case of State ex rel. Star Pub. Co. v. Associated Press (159 Mo., loc. cit., 456, 51 L. R. A., 151, 81 Am. St. Kep., 368, 60 S. W. 91, 104), this court used this language:- "But there is nothing here on which a monopoly can attach. The business is one of mere personal service, an occupation. Unless there is 'property' to be 'affected with a public interest,' there is no basis laid for the fact or the charge of 'a monopoly.' " Ime authorities seem to be uniform in holding that individuals have a perfect legal right to form labor organizations for the protection and promotion of the interest of the laboring classes, and deny the power to enjoin the members of such organizations from peaceably withdrawing from the ser-vice of the employer. (Wabash R. Co. v. Hannahan (C. C), 121 Fed., 5G3; National Protective Assn. v. Gumming, 170 N. Y., 315; Dowen i). J!ifij,theson, 14 Allen, 499; Gray v. Building Trades Council, 91 Minn., 171; Thomas v. Cincirmati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. {C. 0.), 4 Inters. Com. Rep., 788; Ames v. Union P. R. Go. (G. C), 62 Fed., 7; Atchison, T. & S. P. R. Co. v. Gee (G. C.) 140 Fed., 153; Arthur 1). Oakes, 63 Fed., 310.) Mlany more adjudications of the same nature exist and might be cited, but, as there is no conflict between the modern decisions upon this question, it would be a useless waste of time and labor to cite more. These decisions are based upon the law which permits every one to enter into any kind of contract which has for its object and purpose the protection and promotion of the interest of the parties thereto, as well As the betterment of their condition in life; and that right to so contract is not curtailed or abridged if, perchance, the contract indirectly or incidentally operates in restraint of trade. We must, therefore, hold that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners and their allied associations, whom the defendants represent, are not unlawful combinations made and entered into in re- straint of trade, but are legal and highly laudable when confined within, proper bounds. (22 L. R. A. (N. S.), 616.) Le^slatures, as well as the courts, now recognize the right of laboring people to organize for the purpose of promoting their common welfare, elevating their standard of skill, advancing and maintaining their wages, fixing the hours of labor and the rate of wages_, obtainifng emt)loyment for their members, securing control of the work connected with their trade, or favorable terms to their employers in the purchase of material, and contracts for such persons as employ members of their society. And others may combine with them for the accomphshment of these purposes. (24 Cyc, 819, and numerous cases cited to support the text, for government and discipline of members.) While we have herein reported the material evidence submitted to the subcommittee upon this subject of the investigation and the PAINT CEEEK COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIEGINIA. 41 authorities relied upon by the parties to sustain and refute those contentions, we express no opinion as to whether the charge made by the coal operators of West Virginia is sustained by the facts, or the law applicable to those facts, because we found there was lately pendjjig in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of West Virginia a case under the style of Hichman Coal & Coke Co. V. John Mitchell et al., and now pending in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Vir- rinia, another case under the style of the United States v. John P. White et al., the former being a bill in equity and the latter a crimi- nal prosecution, both of which involve the alleged conspiracy and combination to restrain and monopoUze interstate and foreign commerce in coal, which the coal operators of West Virginia charge was made by the coal operators of Ohio, Indiana, IlUnois, and west- ern Pennsylvania, and B. F. Chapman and others, members of the United Mme Workers of America, the subject of this investigation. The case in equity has been determined in the district court, and a copy of the opinion of Judge Dayton, who presided on the hearing, has been submitted to us, from which it appears that upon a record of some 8,000 pages, he found the charges of the complainaat in the case to be sustained by the facts, and granted an injunction against the defendants perpetually enjoining them from further acts m the execution of the conspiracy and combination found to exist. But it is stated by one of the counsel for the United Mine Workers of America thfet an appeal has been taken in the case^ and therefore the questions involved are yet pending and undetennmed in the courts. The criminal case is also still pendmg and undetermmed. We think it would be improper for a committee of a legislative body to undertake to determine in advance questions of which courts of competent jurisdiction have under consideration in cases pending in them. In other words, we are of opinion that the Senate should not and has no power to prejudge questions of either law or fact involving the property and liberty of citizens, of which the courts of the country have lawfully assumed jurisdiction. It would, we think, be an unwarranted mvasion of the province of the judiciary by the legislative branch of the Government. We therefore report merely the evidence that has been submitted to us tending to show whether or not the unfortunate conditions existing in the coal fields of West Virginia, and especially upon Paint Creek and Cabin Creek, were caused or aggravated by an unlawful conspiracy and combination to restrain interstate commerce in vio- lation of the laws of the United States, submitting the same for such use and consideration as may be deemed proper by the Senate. Jno. K. Shields.