331.1 
 
 J983t 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 ft Q ? 
 
 JOB 
 
 , 
 
 , J 
 
 [Jew J 
 
 C\N IT o h 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/testimonyofhermaOOunit 
 
Ill inois Coal Operators Association 
 
 OFFICE, IOO2-3 ELLSWORTH .TUILDING 
 
 355 DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, ILL. 
 
 OFFICERS 
 
 O. L. Garrison, ----- President 
 
 J. A. Agee, - Vice-President 
 
 E. T. Bent, ------- Secretary-Treasurer 
 
 C. L. Scroggs, Recording Secretary 
 
 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE N \ 4 
 
 O. L. Garrison, Chairman ) y L \ 
 
 /% /v \ 
 
 C. L. Scroggs, Secretary 
 
 First District — 
 
 H. N. Taylor, A. L. Sweet, S. M. Dalzell 
 Second District — 
 
 J. H. Garaghty, W. W. Keefer 
 Third District— 
 
 P. G. Matheny, Lee Kincaid, Edwards Brown 
 Fourth District— 
 
 D. D. Shumway, F. W. Lukins, Walter Puterbaugh 
 Fijth District — 
 
 C. F. Parker, J. C. Muren, A. J. Moorshead 
 Sixth District — 
 
 F. D. Secor, C. E. Hull, S. B. Eaton 
 
 Seventh District — 
 
 F. S. Peabody, M. C. Wright 
 
 Eighth District — 
 
 Henry Long, Richard Newsam, G. W. Traer 
 Ninth District — 
 
 Randolph Smith, E. C. Donk, Geo. T. Cutts 
 
 THE COMMISSION 
 
 Herman Justi, ----- Commissioner 
 
 C. L. Scroggs, Secretary of Commission 
 
 ^ \ o % 
 
Testimony of Herman justi , Commissioner of the 
 Illinois Coal Operators Association , before the 
 National Industrial Commission , Washington , 
 17 . C., May 13th, 1 go i, on the Conditions of 
 Labor in the Coal Mining Industry of Illinois. 
 
 The commission met at 10.55 a. m., Senator Kyle presiding. 
 At that time Mr. Herman Justi tvas introduced as a witness, and, 
 being first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
 
 Q. (By Senator Kyle.) Will you give your name and 
 address and business to the stenographer? — A. Herman Justi; 
 commissioner of the Illinois Coal Operators Association, 
 Ellsworth Building, Chicago. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Farquhar.) What were the reasons that led up 
 to the formation of this association on the part of the operators 
 in Illinois ? — A. The constant trouble between the coal opera- 
 tors and the coal miners of Illinois arising from disputes over 
 the interpretation of certain clauses in the agreements entered 
 into between the coal operators and the coal miners was one of the 
 causes that led up to the establishment of the Association of the 
 Illinois Coal Operators. The miners of Illinois, like the miners 
 of other States, were scarcely educated up to the point where 
 they could fully appreciate and understand the exact nature 
 of these agreements, and therefore the sacredness of the con- 
 tract was very often disregarded. Under what is known as the 
 interstate joint movement, certain scales of wages and condi- 
 tions of mining were established for the four central coal States; 
 that is to say, mining rates, based upon competitive conditions 
 established for certain basing points of Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
 Indiana and Illinois in an interstate convention, and in this 
 interstate convention the mining conditions were also estab- 
 lished.* 
 
 *Mr. E. T. Bent of Oglesby, for many years Secretary of the Northern Illinois 
 Coal Operators Association, informs me that : “ prior to the forming of our Asso- 
 
 ciation the trouble in northern Illinois was partly over the interpretation of the 
 agreement, and partly over the increasing difficulty in making any agreement 
 at all with the rest of the State running wild. So far as the rest of Illinois was 
 concerned the trouble was due to there being no agreements except at mines 
 locally, and those agreements often hardly worthy of the name because enforced 
 by one party — in some cases all the miners in a single shaft were not paid the 
 same rate, and other cases no two companies were paying the same rate. This 
 was the condition prior to the strike of 1897 , and it was the issue of that strike 
 that drove the operators into affiliation the following winter. Outside of the 
 First District I doubt if there were any written contracts prior to that strike 
 over which disputes as to the interpretation of certain clauses could arise. 
 Contracts were certainly often disregarded, the alleged justification, rightly or 
 wrongly, being attributed to that fact that they had little or no hand in making 
 them.” 
 
 3 
 
Q. (By Senator Kyle.) What States? — A. Pennsylvania, 
 Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The purpose of fixing a mining 
 scale, and mining conditions in these four states, was in order 
 to bring them as nearly as possible upon a fair competitive 
 basis. The idea of this interstate movement was to establish 
 as far as possible uniformity not only in the scale of wages, but 
 in the conditions of mining, and as a result it naturally influenced 
 producers in establishing the selling price of coal. Without 
 any agreement having been made as to what the price of coal 
 should be, the fact that all the coal operators in those four 
 States paid relatively the same mining scale and were operat- 
 ing under the same conditions of mining made it possible for 
 every operator to know approximately what the product of 
 every coal mine cost every other coal operator. 
 
 While the system is in itself excellent, and while I believe an 
 honest effort has been made to maintain this interstate move- 
 ment upon a basis of uniformity — that is to say, commercial 
 uniformity — still that great essential to the continued success of 
 the movement has not as yet been fully realized. 
 
 I can best explain it in this way: Of those four States in the 
 interstate movement, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana are 
 upon what is known as the double standard or the screening 
 basis, while Illinois is on the run of mine basis. Then there 
 is a differential between machine mining and pick mining. 
 That was also intended to be uniform, but uniformity in that 
 respect has not as yet been attained. But taking the system 
 as a whole, it has been a vast improvement upon the system or 
 the want of system that prevailed prior to the interstate joiirt 
 movement.* 
 
 The interstate movement was inaugurated at Chicago in 
 January, 1898. It was a direct result of the long and bitter 
 strike in the coal mining industry that prevailed throughout 
 Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio and Illinois during 1897. Prior 
 to the interstate joint movement chaos prevailed in the bitumi- 
 nous coal fields. The conditions throughout were demoralized. 
 Labor was dissatisfied. Strikes or lockouts happened almost 
 daily, and occurred always in one of two ways: There being- 
 no uniformity in the mining scale, in wages or mining conditions, 
 the miners of one mine or of a set of mines would strike because 
 they were getting less pay than the miners at some other mine 
 or set of mines. Then, on the other hand, certain operators 
 who were paying a higher mining scale than their competitors 
 would often shut down their mines until their rate was re- 
 duced. As a consequence there was always a strike or lockout 
 
 *Since giving my testimony before the National Industrial Commission, I 
 have been informed that the interstate movement existed formerly for several 
 years, but with only limited success on account of the First District of Illinois 
 alone adhering to it, the balance of the States not being bound by its acts. 
 
 4 
 
somewhere, and such a thing as industrial peace in the bitumi- 
 nous coal fields was unknown. 
 
 Under the old system the more powerful operators could, 
 and the less scrupulous operators would, take advantage not 
 only of the miners but also of their more scrupulous rivals, 
 that system not only encouraged unfair practices and threw 
 into idleness tens of thousands of working men, but it crippled 
 or bankrupted many honest coal operators. 
 
 Severe as competition is found today in the bituminous coal 
 held, it has its limitations, which it did not have before. The 
 reason for this is plain. Relatively speaking, every operator 
 m the bituminous held pays the same scale of wages, the same 
 mining scale, and is governed by the same mining conditions. 
 Each operator therefore knows substantially what it costs his 
 rival to produce coal, and hence the selling price must of 
 necessity be more nearly uniform.* 
 
 Then, again, prior to the interstate movement, there was no 
 reliable standard of justice by which the miners were to be guided. 
 .The interstate joint movement has had a tendency to impress 
 on the men the sacredness of a contract, thus making the task 
 of the miners officials less difficult in the carrying out of the 
 agreements into which they entered on behalf of the men. 
 This is not possible always as yet, but there is at least a steady 
 and gratifying improvement. Notably is this true in Illinois, 
 where the operators and miners have strong and thoroughly 
 equipped organizations. 
 
 Q- . (By Mr. Kennedy.) Did you state by what authority 
 this interstate movement was set up ? — A. It can hardly be 
 called an organization. The operators meet by mutual agree- 
 ment with the United Mine Workers of America annually in joint 
 convention, for the purpose- of effecting trade agreements. 
 They organize by the election of a chairman, of a secretary, 
 appoint committees and proceed as is the custom in deliberative 
 bodies. 
 
 Q, It was set up by consent of the two interests, and you 
 represent the operators? — A. Yes; it is with consent of the two 
 interests, but I am the commissioner simply of the Illinois Coal 
 Operators Association. The operators of the other three States 
 have organizations, but I do not know how far they have gone 
 in establishing commissions similar to ours. 
 
 *To the end that uniformity might prevail in fact rather than merely in 
 theory Mr. A. J. Moorshead, at the interstate convention of 1901, 'held in Colum- 
 ° j r , the following resolution, which was defeated, the operators 
 ot Illinois and the miners of the four States to the interstate movement voting 
 a -r) while the operators of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana voted “nay:” 
 
 Kesolved, 1 hat inasmuch as the foundations of the interstate movement are 
 based upon competitive and commercial uniformity and not upon geographical 
 lines, the scale of wages and conditions must be uniform throughout the States, 
 parties to said agreement and the scale committee is hereby instructed to draft 
 an agreement to cover the prices and conditions of both pick and machine mining 
 m said competitive field based upon lines of uniformity.” 
 
 5 
 
Q. We would like to know more of the purposes and plans 
 of your commission ? — A. I will endeavor to describe briefly 
 the purpose and scope of the commission established by the 
 Illinois Coal Operators Association. 
 
 1. The individual operator finding himself at a disadvantage, 
 if not powerless, in dealing with a great labor organization 
 like the United Mine Workers, realized the necessity for estab- 
 lishing upon a firm basis an organization of operators. Such 
 an organization could, it was believed, enjoying the respect of 
 its rival, bring about greater uniformity in wages and condi- 
 tions, and also be conducive of harmony among the operators 
 and between the operators and the miners. 
 
 2. Disputes and strikes coming with such frequency, if they 
 were to be settled with any degree of satisfaction, required far 
 too large a share of the operator’s time, or else if his time was 
 not thus freely given to the task of settling them they would be 
 settled by the miners in their own way and for their own 
 advantage regardless of the rights of the employer. 
 
 3. The coal operators of Illinois decided that they were not 
 themselves well qualified to sit in judgment upon their own 
 grievances. They believed further that this was an age of 
 specialization and of specialists, and that special talents and 
 peculiar fitness, along with perfect knowledge of labor conditions 
 throughout the State, were necessary to settle disputes fairly. 
 And what is true of coal operators is equally true of coal miners, 
 human nature being the same in both — both seeking alike only 
 their own selfish interests and often closing their eyes to the 
 rights of others. 
 
 This system of settling disputes and of preventing strikes 
 has, I am happy to say, worked admirably. 
 
 Under this system, whenever differences arise between 
 operator and miner, if the complaint is on the side of the miner 
 application is made by the local officials of the miners’ union 
 to their general officers, and the general officers in turn notify 
 the commissioner of the Illinois Coal Operators Association 
 of the fact that differences or disputes have arisen at a certain 
 mine, and that they desire to take up the matter with a view 
 of adjusting it. If the complaint comes from the side of the 
 operator, the operator calls the attention of the commissioner 
 to the fact, and the commissioner in turn calls the attention of 
 the officials of the United Mine Workers. 
 
 I am now speaking, of course, only of Illinois. I should 
 remark, however, that under the State agreement entered 
 into between the operators and the miners there is a clause 
 defining exactly what steps shall be taken before any question 
 in dispute is submitted either to the general officers of the 
 miners’ organization or to the commissioner of the Illinois Coal 
 
Operators Association, and I will file copies of this agreement 
 with you.* 
 
 The idea of both organizations is that disputes and differences 
 are best settled as near their source as possible, and as soon as 
 possible, after any dissatisfaction has been expressed or any 
 differences have arisen either upon the part of the employer or 
 the employee or between the employer and employee. Com- 
 plaint having been made by either side, the officials of the two 
 organizations, namely, the United Mine Workers of America 
 and the Illinois Coal Operators Association, agree upon a 
 place of meeting, and this is usually at the mines where the 
 
 *Section XIII of State Agreement is as follows: 
 
 13th. (a) The duties of the pit committee shall be confined to the adjustment 
 of disputes between the pit boss and any of the members of the United Mine 
 Workers of America working in and around the mine, for whom a scale is made 
 arising out of this agreement or any sub-district agreement made in connection 
 herewith, where the pit boss and said miner or mine laborer have failed to agree. 
 
 (b) In case of any local trouble arising at any shaft through such failure to 
 agree between the pit boss and any miner or mine laborer, the pit committee 
 and the miners’ local president and the pit boss are empowered to adjust it; 
 and in the case of their disagreement it shall be referred to the superintendent of 
 the company and the president of the miners’ local executive board, where 
 such exists, and shall they fail to adjust it — and in all other cases — it shall be 
 referred to the superintendent of the company and the miners’ president of the 
 sub-district; and should they fail to adjust it it shall be referred in writing to 
 the officials of the company concerned and the State officials of the United Mine 
 Workers of America for adjustment; and in all such cases the miners and mine 
 laborers and parties involved must continue at work pending an investigation 
 and adjustment until a final decision is reached* in the matter above set forth. 
 
 (c) If any day men refuse to continue at work because of a grievance which 
 has or has not been taken up for adjustment in the manner provided herein, 
 and such action shall seem likely to impede the operation of the mine, the pit 
 committee shall immediately furnish a man or men to take such vacant place or 
 places at the scale rate, in order that the mine may continue at work; and it 
 shall be the duty of any member or members of the United Mine Workers who 
 may be called upon by the pit boss or pit committee to immediately take the 
 place or places assigned to him or them in pursuance hereof. 
 
 (d) The pit committee in the discharge of its duties shall under no circum- 
 stances go around the mine for any cause whatever unless called upon by the 
 pit boss or by a miner or company man who may have a grievance that he can 
 not settle with the boss; and as its duties are confined to the adjustment of any 
 such grievances, it is understood that its members shall not draw any compen- 
 sation except while actively engaged in the discharge of said duties. The fore- 
 going shall not be construed to prohibit the pit committee from looking after the 
 matter of membership dues and initiations in any proper manner. 
 
 (e) Members of the pit committee employed as day men shall not leave their 
 places of duty during working hours except by permission of the operator, or in 
 cases involving the stoppage of the mine. 
 
 (f) The operator or his superintendent or mine manager shall be respected in 
 the management of the mine and the direction of the working force. The right 
 to hire must include also the right to discharge, and it is not the purpose of this 
 agreement to abridge the rights of the employer in either of thesg respects. If, 
 however, any employee shall be suspended or discharged by the company, and it 
 is claimed that an injustice has been done him, an investigation to be conducted 
 by the parties and in the manner set forth in the paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
 section shall be taken up at once, and if it is determined that an injustice has 
 been done, the operator agrees to reinstate said employe and pay him full com- 
 pensation for the time he has been suspended and out of employment; provided, 
 if no decision shall be rendered within five days the case shall be considered closed 
 in so far as compensation is concerned. 
 
 7 
 
trouble exists, although it does sometimes happen that the 
 meetings are held either at the office of the commission in 
 Chicago or of the United Mine Workers in Springfield. Either 
 the president or the vice-president of the United Mine Workers 
 and the commissioner of the Illinois Coal Operators Associa- 
 tion are always present at these meetings. All formality is 
 sought to be waived. At times we organize by electing a chair- 
 man, and at other times we simply gather in an informal way 
 around a table and invite testimony. We always announce 
 that the fullest latitude will be given to all witnesses, and that 
 they will be permitted to say what they please without inter- 
 ruption, so long as they are respectful and do nothing to pro- 
 voke a breach of the peace. No effort is made on either side to 
 embarrass the witness. No advantage is sought upon mere 
 technicalities.. The purpose of this joint meeting of the opera- 
 tors and the miners is to bring out the truth, and every man is 
 encouraged to speak the truth with perfect freedom and without 
 fear of any consequences, the moral support of both organiza- 
 tions being pledged to protect him. 
 
 Q. Do other parties than those interested participate in these 
 conferences ?— A. The operators and the miners directly in- 
 terested participate, and, if necessary to a full understanding of 
 the case, witnesses are brought from the outside, but they are 
 usually witnesses who come from some other mine or operators 
 who possibly have some similar conditions. 
 
 Q. Lawyers or other parties are not brought into these con- 
 ferences ? — A. Lawyers are never brought in. 
 
 Q. The matter rests entirely with the operators and the miners ? 
 —A. Yes. 
 
 Q. In the meantime are those mines being worked while this 
 conference is in session, before you come to a decision? — A. I 
 will read a clause from the State agreement which bears on this 
 subject, and which answers your question, I believe. 
 
 (Reading.) 
 
 “Sec. XIII. In case of any local trouble arising at any shaft 
 through failure to agree between the pit boss and any miner or 
 mine laborer, the pit committee and the miners’ local president 
 and the pit boss are empowered to adjust it; and in the case 
 of their disagreement it shall be referred to the superintendent 
 of the company and the president of the miners’ local executive 
 board, where such exists, and shall they fail to adjust it — and 
 in all other cases — it shall be referred to the superintendent of 
 the company and the miners’ president of the subdistrict; and 
 should they fail to adjust it, it shall be referred in writing to 
 the officials of the company concerned and the State officials 
 of the United Mine Workers of America for adjustment; and 
 in all such cases the miners and mine laborers and parties 
 involved must continue at work pending an investigation and 
 adjustment until a final decision is reached in the manner above 
 set forth. 
 
 S 
 
“If any day men refuse to continue at work because of a 
 grievance which has or has not been taken up for adjustment 
 in the manner provided herein, and such action shall seem 
 likely to impede the operation of the mine, the pit committee 
 shall immediately furnish a man or men to take such vacant 
 place or places at the scale rate, in order that the mine may 
 continue at work; and it shall be the duty of any member or 
 members of the United Mine Workers who may be called upon 
 by the pit boss or pit committee to immediately take the place 
 or places assigned to him or them in pursuance hereof. ” 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Litchman.) Do I understand you are yourself a 
 coal operator or represent the Coal Operators Association f — A. 
 I simply represent the Coal Operators Association. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Farquhar.) What are the delegated powers 
 from the Coal Operators Association to you as commissioner ? — - 
 A. To use my best judgment in enforcing the. terms of the 
 interstate, State, district, and subdistrict agreements, and to 
 adjust all disputes and differences that arise between the opera- 
 tors and the miners. Only the question of labor is referred to 
 me. I have nothing whatever to do with any movement look- 
 ing to the establishment of a scale of wages or conditions of 
 mining, but rather to enforce those conditions and to see that 
 the scale of wages is paid after it has been agreed upon by 
 the respective organizations. 
 
 Q. Your decision as the representative of the operators then 
 is final?- — A. Yes; binding on the operators. 
 
 Q. Are any appeals being taken? — A. There have been no 
 appeals taken, but disputes in several instances have been 
 referred to the National President of the U. M. W. of A. and to 
 me for adjustment. It was simply a shifting of responsibility 
 from the State to the National officers of the miners’ organization. 
 During the past year we have had possibly 200 cases before the 
 commission. In three of those cases the State officials and the 
 commissioner could not agree. The decision upon these was 
 referred to Mr. John Mitchell, president of the United Mine 
 Workers’ Union of America, and to me, the commissioner. One 
 of these was in itself trifling, but for certain reasons the officials 
 of the State organization preferred not to render a decision, and 
 inasmuch as I had another case at the same time with Mr. 
 Mitchell they agreed to refer that one to Mr. Mitchell and to me. 
 After hearing Mr. Mitchell’s statement of the case, I consented, 
 under certain conditions, to his decision, and that decision was 
 enforced. 
 
 There was another question that came up, in regard to forcing 
 men on initial construction work into the union, the operators 
 claiming that the scale of wages and conditions of mining had 
 nothing whatever to do with construction work, maintaining 
 that the miners’ union had no jurisdiction over such employees. 
 Mr. Mitchell preferred not to render a decision in the matter, 
 
 9 
 
and said he thought it was better that it should go before the 
 State convention and let the organizations decide it, and to that 
 I agreed. So the demand of the miners with reference to 
 forcing men on construction work into the union was abandoned 
 for a time, and when the State convention met in Springfield 
 last March, the coal miners and operators agreed that the men 
 working on construction work— on new work, and elaborate 
 reconstruction work — should be excluded from the union. So 
 that matter, was ultimately settled as was desired by the 
 operators.* 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Kennedy.) Who, if anybody, holds equal power 
 with you on behalf of the miners? — A. The president and vice- 
 president of the State organization. of the mine workers’ union. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Farquhar.) The jurisdiction of the miners of 
 Illinois is divided up into the State jurisdiction, the district . 
 jurisdiction and the sub-district jttrisdiction ? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. How many districts in the State ? — A. We have nine 
 scale districts. The districts are divided with a view to 
 establishing a mining scale based upon the varying conditions 
 of mining. That is to say, in one part of the State it is long wall 
 mining and in another part of the State it is room and pillar 
 work. Then in some parts of the State the seams are thick, and 
 in other parts they are thin, and the scale of wages is based 
 upon the competitive conditions and the mining conditions. 
 
 Q. In these disputes about conditions of labor and about 
 wages since you have been commissioner, what is your expe- 
 rience, that more have originated from the operators or from 
 the miners? — A. The 200 complaints, I believe, were about 
 equally divided, although in the adjustment of the differences I 
 presume that possibly 80 per cent were decided against the 
 miners. The reason for that, of course, will be at once apparent 
 when I tell you that the miners were not so thoroughly familiar 
 with the agreements, and they had so many local organizations 
 that local demands would be made, such as they had made 
 prior to the interstate movement; the presumption on their 
 part was that what they had done before they could continue 
 to do even after this movement had been inaugurated. t 
 
 Q. You have no disputes coming from the mine run system? 
 
 *Clause 19th of State Agreement reads: 
 
 The erection of head frames, buildings, scales, machinery, railroad switches, 
 etc., necessary for the completion of a plant to hoist coal, all being in the nature 
 of construction work, are to be excluded from the jurisdiction of the United 
 Mine Workers of America. Extensive repairs to or rebuilding the same class 
 of work shall also be included in the same exception. 
 
 fit has been the custom of the United Mine Workers to adopt their con- 
 stitution before the joint state convention, and so that instrument did not always 
 conform to the joint agreements. As a result, the miners obeyed their constitu- 
 tion, and disregarded clauses in the agreement conflicting with the constitu- 
 tion. Another common practice was that of the miners’ locals promulgating 
 certain demands which they considered equivalent to an agreement and which 
 they would at once proceed to enforce. 
 
 10 
 
— A. Yes; the complaints of the mine run system are frequently 
 due, as is natural, from the excessive use of powder, which, as 
 you will readily understand, shoots the coal into smaller frag- 
 ments than is desirable, thus greatly increasing the percentage of 
 screenings. There has also been a disposition on the part of the 
 miners to load rock, slate and sulphur, but an honest effort is 
 being made by the miners’ officials to check this, fines, suspen- 
 sions or discharge being the penalty, and while the coal as a 
 result is slightly cleaner, the percentage of fine coal continues 
 very great.* 
 
 Q. From your experience would you say the run-of-mine is 
 a better plan than the screen, and more satisfactory to both 
 men and operators f — A. I would say the run-of-mine system 
 would be the best system if it was adopted universally, 
 and if the result, which was promised by the mine workers’ 
 union when they went to the mine-run basis, was carried out. 
 The operators were assured the mine-run system would make 
 better miners, but as yet this promise has not been fulfilled. 
 I have no question whatever of the earnest desire of the officials 
 to carry it out, but up to this time they have simply been 
 unable to do it. I think the system, in itself, is designed to 
 make better miners, but, as stated before, the system has not 
 been satisfactory. 
 
 To give you some general idea of how some of the more serious 
 questions are settled in our State, one of the three cases that were 
 submitted to President John Mitchell and to me jointly, was a 
 question that came up within the last 40 days in the Danville 
 district, which is the basing district for Illinois. The question 
 in dispute was the interpretation of clause 16 of the State 
 agreement. It bears directly upon the question you asked 
 in regard to the mine-run system. A brief history of the con- 
 tention in the State convention which led up to the adoption of 
 clause 16 of the Illinois State agreement, is given in this decision 
 rendered by President Mitchell and by me jointly. The question 
 under discussion was as to what constituted ordinary and what 
 constituted “extraordinary conditions” in mining — that is to 
 say, how much rock was it necessary for the miner to clean as a 
 part of the work in return for the wage which was paid him per 
 ton under the mining scale of that district. The miners con- 
 tended that “extraordinary conditions” meant one thing, and 
 the operators contended that it meant something else. The 
 operators took the position that the purpose of inserting that 16th 
 clause in the State agreement was to give to the operators of 
 ' that district clean coal, for which they really paid when they 
 complied with the terms of the interstate agreement. 
 
 Q. For which the price was commensurate ? — A. For which 
 the price was commensurate. The State miners’ organization 
 
 *See correspondence of President Mitchell and the Commissioner of the Illinois 
 Coal Operators Association appended. 
 
 11 
 
and the operators of the Danville district failing to agree, and 
 the miners refusing to go to work tinder the interpretation of the 
 article in question by the operators, and the operators refusing 
 to start up their mines under the interpretation by the miners, 
 a deadlock was at once established and about 4,000 miners 
 threatened to quit work. President Russell of the State 
 miners’ organization, recognizing that the situation was critical 
 and that it was necessary that something should be done, 
 finally offered a resolution in the joint subdistrict convention at 
 Danville, on April 11, as follows: 
 
 “That the questions now in dispute in the Danville district, 
 namely, the interpretation and application of the sixteenth 
 clause of the Springfield agreement and the method of shearing 
 the entry coal, be referred to Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Justi for 
 settlement, and their decision shall be binding. Work at the 
 mines shall resume and continue pending the settlement under 
 the agreement of 1901 and now in force. In case the decision 
 is against the operators, the miners shall be paid for the work 
 done under protest. 
 
 “The parties herein named are to take up the matter and 
 dispose of it at once. 
 
 “The rock down in the places at the resumption of work is to 
 be cleaned up by the operators. ” 
 
 In accordance with that resolution, Mr. Mitchell and I re- 
 paired to the Danville district and made a thorough inspection 
 of the 4 of the 10 mines involved. We devoted 3 days to this 
 work, after which we were in session 2 days in our efforts 
 to reach an agreement, and this decision, a copy of which I 
 wish to file, is the result.* 
 
 The decision was a substantial triumph for the operators. 
 Although the miners in the Danville district are said to be the 
 most radical in the State, they remained at work during that 
 investigation, and after the decision was reached they continued 
 at work and are at work today. I had information of that fact 
 only yesterday. 
 
 Q. You spoke a short time ago of the difficulty of the mine 
 workers understanding these agreements, and maintaining old 
 privileges and old rules. Now, by that do you intend to criti- 
 cize the intelligence of the miner, or do you refer to the lack of 
 means of information of the miners to know exactly what the 
 new rules aref — A. There are constantly new men who join 
 the unions, and, of course, they must be educated. There are 
 changes being constantly made in the local organizations in the 
 district, new local officers are elected, and very often they are 
 elected because they have made promises to do for the miners 
 what their predecessors had perhaps promised to do and found 
 they could not do. It is not due to inherent ignorance of the 
 miners. 
 
 *See decision of Commission appended. 
 
 12 
 
Q. What nationality prevails in the mines of Illinois? — A. I 
 can not say definitely. I could obtain the information, of 
 course, but I haven’t it at hand. In parts of the northern field 
 there are a good many Hungarians, Lithuanians, and Poles. 
 In the south there are quite a number of blacks, American, 
 Irish, English, and Scotch. In the central part of the State 
 there are English, Scotch, Americans, and Italians. But I 
 believe the majority of the miners in the State of Illinois are 
 English-speaking people.* 
 
 There is another great difficulty in informing the men of the 
 exact nature of these State agreements. In the first place, after 
 the agreement is made (as of the first of April always), it 
 must be translated into all of these languages spoken at the 
 different mines, and it must be explained and the reasons given 
 why it was necessary to make the changes. If a concession was 
 made to the operators, of course it requires a good deal of work 
 on the part of the officials to convince the miners that after all it 
 was for the best, and that, whether it was for the best or not, it 
 was the best that could be done under the circumstances. 
 
 Q. Do the mine workers of the State have their own conven- 
 tion at Springfield? — A. They hold their own convention at 
 Springfield. That convention is always held before the joint 
 State convention, just as the national organization of mine 
 workers meets before the interstate convention. 
 
 Q. In the operators’ conferences or in their convention is 
 your State pretty well represented by operators? — A. Yes; Illi- 
 nois, both by miners and operators, is always largely represented 
 in the interstate convention. 
 
 Q. Have you many operators in Illinois under conflicting 
 interests that would cause a lack of harmony among the oper- 
 ators? — A. Prior to the interstate movement it was 
 believed that there were conditions that prevented harmony, 
 and it was a fact that the operators in one part of the State were 
 entirely unacquainted with the operators in the other parts of 
 the State and distrusted them, but the feeling of distrust has 
 now passed away, and all the operators in Illinois know each 
 other. 
 
 Q. Did you say that these conferences, both on the part of the 
 workingmen and on the part of the operators, had been con- 
 ducive to harmony of interests and a better understanding of the 
 
 *The nationalities represented in Illinois as per Illinois Coal report 1899 is 
 as follows: 
 
 American 
 
 
 373 Poles 
 
 . . 2,133 
 
 English 
 
 
 
 . . 487 
 
 Scotch 
 
 
 Russians 
 
 . . 498 
 
 Irish 
 
 
 975 Scandinavian . . 
 
 . . 619 
 
 Welsh 
 
 
 774 Unknown 
 
 . . 861 
 
 German 4,138 
 
 While the increase of late years in northern Illinois has been largely with 
 Hungarians, Lithuanians, Italians and Poles, still English, Scotch, Irish and 
 Welsh are largely employed. 
 
 13 
 
interests of the whole State? — A. They have been a tremendous 
 advantage both to the operators and to the miners. In fact, 
 it is my belief that 95 per cent of -all the differences and 
 disputes arising between employees and employers can be set- 
 tled amicably if the parties in dispute will only consent to a 
 conference. If they will only get together and talk the matter 
 over they can usually reach some agreement, and, as a rule, 
 the result will be partly a compromise, because it will be found 
 that they were both to some extent right and to some extent 
 wrong. 
 
 Q. (By Senator Kyle.) Theretofore you had not the machinery 
 to settle these disputes? — A. That is it precisely; we were with- 
 out the necessary machinery for settling our differences. 
 
 Q. And that is true of all the years previous to the last few 
 years? — A. That was true until 1898, and in the sense that the 
 question of labor has been taken up as a distinct and separate 
 question, it was true until the past year. 
 
 Q. Heretofore, were your associations opposed to organized 
 labor? — A. In the southern part of the state and in the central 
 part they were opposed to organized labor; in the northern part 
 of the State they recognized labor at an earlier date. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Farquhar.) Recognized it on account of its 
 strength, didn’t they? — A. Yes; though many preferred dealing 
 with organized labor even in those earlier days. 
 
 Q. Have you any papers on any features of these Illinois 
 conferences or agreements that you desire to present? — A. Yes; 
 I want to leave copies of the proceedings of the last interstate 
 convention, which will give you some idea of how thoroughly 
 the whole question, as it affects these four States, is thrashed 
 out. Of course, they never agree in open convention, but a 
 general discussion is carried on publicly for the purpose of 
 bringing out the sentiment of miners and operators to the 
 end that the differences of opinion may be narrowed down. 
 Then the whole question in dispute as to the scale of wages or as to 
 conditions of mining is referred to a joint scale committee, com- 
 posed of 4 miners and 4 operators from each State, making in 
 all 32 representatives on that joint scale committee. That 
 number being too large, the matter is finally referred to 16 of 
 the 32, and after the 16 have discussed the whole question pro 
 and con for about 3 days they then report to the full scale 
 committee, and it in turn to the joint convention, progress of 
 work. The joint convention very promptly refers the matter 
 back to the special scale committee, who come back into the 
 joint convention with some definite report. We have held these 
 interstate conventions annually since 1897, and we have never 
 failed to reach an agreement. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Kennedy.) I want to ask if the recognition of 
 organized labor has been a good thing for the operator, in that it 
 enables one operator to know what another operator has to pay 
 
 14 
 
for the mining of coal? — A. I believe so; in my opinion it is a 
 decided advantage. I believe it distributes more equitably the 
 trade of the State or the trade of the country in that product. 
 
 Q. And brings stability to the trade? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Litchman.) As I understand it, this commission 
 of which you are a member is composed of two persons? — A. No. 
 This commission of which I speak is established by the operators, 
 and I am the commissioner. Now, in the cases which I have 
 mentioned the president of the Mine Workers’ Union, represent- 
 ing the miners, and myself constituted a commission. 
 
 Q. I notice in the agreement which you submitted, it was 
 signed by yourself and Mr. Mitchell as commissioners. — A. That 
 was because we were joint commissioners in that particular case. 
 If I may, I would like to leave copies of the proceedings of the 
 joint convention of the coal operators and miners of the State of 
 Illinois for the present year. You will see this is printed in double 
 column and takes up 252 closely printed pages. The Illinois coal 
 operators and miners in their recent joint convention went a little 
 further than the operators and miners have gone before in the 
 joint movement and have printed the proceedings in 
 full. The object in doing so was that if during the year or at 
 any future time any question arose as to the reason for the 
 adoption of any particular section or clause of the agreement 
 it would be fully explained by the statements of some coal 
 operator or coal miner who had participated in one or the 
 other of these conferences. 
 
 After the joint interstate convention and the joint State con- 
 ventions have been held, then, as I stated before, the districts 
 and subdistricts meet and they agree upon conditions of mining 
 that are peculiar either to some one or two mines or to some 
 special district. Now all of these agreements for Illinois are 
 embraced in one volume, which gives the joint State agreement, 
 the Illinois State agreement, and the district and local agree- 
 ments. Never until last year had any association of coal opera- 
 tors, in Illinois or elsewhere, undertaken to publish in one volume 
 all these different agreements. 
 
 Copies of these agreements are very generally distributed 
 throughout the State. We furnish them to all the operators, to 
 all the superintendents and mine managers. We furnish them 
 also to all the leading officials — State, district, and local — of the 
 Mine Workers’ Union, so that instead of referring (as was the 
 case formerly) to a typewritten copy, which was very often hid- 
 den away and could not always be found, this volume is always 
 available, so that the exact nature of every agreement is readily 
 obtainable. 
 
 Q. (By Senator Kyle.) The scale of wages and everything is in- 
 cluded in that? — A. The scale of wages, the mining scale, and 
 all the conditions of labor are set forth in that work. 
 
 Q. For each of the districts? — A. Yes. I will also leave with 
 
 15 
 
you copies of the constitution and the year book of the Illi- 
 nois Coal Operators Association. 
 
 I think possibly I can illustrate the nature of our work so 
 as to give you some idea of our plan. Shortly after the joint con- 
 vention in Illinois, the drivers in some of the districts and at a 
 good many of the mines were dissatisfied with their wages, 
 and work was stopped because of the refusal of the drivers to 
 work at the wages agreed upon in the joint convention. Now, 
 this was clearly contrary to the State agreement. It was, how- 
 ever, a trouble not wholly unexpected. We immediately ad- 
 vised the operators throughout the districts where we knew that 
 trouble existed to inform us if their drivers had quit work; if so, 
 for what cause? If they were working, was it at the scale? If 
 not at the scale, what price where they paying? In this way we 
 were enabled to determine exactly how far the operators had 
 violated their agreement and how far the miners had violated 
 their agreement. The operators’ and miners’ organizations 
 hold that it is just as wrong and just as demoralizing to pay 
 more than the agreed price as it is to pay less than the agreed 
 price. The great difficulty that prevailed prior to the interstate 
 movement was due to the lack of uniformity, and under this 
 interstate and State joint movement the only way that peace 
 can be preserved is by observing the terms of the agreement and 
 preserving the uniformity for which we have been contending. 
 
 Then, to give another illustration, an operator informs us 
 that a demand has been made by the miners at his mine for 
 something that is not provided for in any of the agreements and 
 had never been provided for. Now, in order to preserve uni- 
 formity, we immediately proceed to send out a circular letter to 
 every operator belonging to the association to ascertain what 
 custom or practice has prevailed at the particular mine. When 
 this information is received we know precisely what to do. We 
 are able to meet the officials of the Mine Workers’ Union and to 
 give them an accurate and truthful statement of the condi- 
 tions prevailing, and some agreement is immediately reached as 
 to what should be done at that particular mine or what practice 
 should prevail at all the mines. This is done not only in excep- 
 tional cases, but it is done in all cases in order to preserve uni- 
 formity. Therefore the records and files of the Illinois Coal 
 Operators Association, after a lapse of two or three years will be 
 very valuable, because they cover nearly every question that 
 could possibly come up in a dispute. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Kennedy.) I would like to ask you if there are 
 any railroads in Illinois that stand in the light of operators or 
 owners of mines, and that take part by representatives in these 
 conferences? — A. No; if any railroad company has ever taken 
 part in any of the conferences in the joint meeting of miners and 
 operators, th,e fact has never been made known. 
 
 Q. Are there any railroads that own mines in the State of 
 
 16 
 
Illinois? — A. There are no railroads in the State of Illinois that 
 admit owning any coal mines. There is no evidence whatever 
 that any of the railroads own any coal mines, 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Clarke.) Does this interstate movement have 
 anything to do with fixing the price of coal? — A. Nothing what- 
 ever. 
 
 Q. Has its effect generally been to raise wages pr to depress 
 them? — A. It has been to raise wages. 
 
 Q. Does not that have its bearing on the price of coal? — A. 
 Naturally. 
 
 Q. Has coal increased in price appreciably since this move- 
 ment was entered into? — A. At some points coal was abnor- 
 mally low, perhaps; at other points it was abnormally high. 
 The system has had rather a leveling tendency, in my opinion. 
 By a more equitable distribution of the trade in coal it has had 
 the effect of possibly sustaining prices without sustaining them 
 artificially. 
 
 Q. Has anybody ever called it a trust? — A. No. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Litchman.) Has there been any advance in the 
 wages for the season of 1901 over wages paid in 1900? — A. No. 
 
 Q. Was there any advance in 1900 over the wages previously 
 paid? — A. There was an advance in 1900 of from 7 to 11 cents 
 a ton in the mining scale and from 20 to 25 per cent in the wages 
 for what is known as day men; that is, men who work by the day. 
 
 Q. I saw the statement attributed to Mr. Mitchell, president 
 of the Mine Workers’ organization, that this increase for the 
 region covered by your agreement amounted to about $20,000,- 
 000 in the year. Would you think that a fair statement? — A. 
 Well, for a year? 
 
 Q. For the year 1900? — A. The aggregate product in those 
 four States was about 270,000,000 tons. Now, I think it is 
 fair to say that the advance was 25 per cent, taking the mining- 
 scale and the day-wage scale. Of course it is simply a matter 
 of arithmetic, and the accuracy of Mr. Mitchell’s statement 
 could be easily tested. I would say that $20,000,000 seems 
 possibly a little bit high, but at the same time it is not very far 
 from that. 
 
 Q. Approximately it was that? — A. Yes. An advance was 
 obtained also two years prior to 1900. From 1897 a material 
 advance was obtained in 1898, and then an advance in 1900; no 
 advance in 1901.* 
 
 *What Mr. John Mitchell said was, that “in the year 1900 the miners of the 
 United States secured an advance in wages, through joint agreement with the 
 operators, amounting to, approximately, twenty million dollars. These figures 
 are obtained by taking the total number of tons of coal produced, which was, 
 approximately, two hundred million, and estimating the advance at ten cents 
 per ton, which would be a fair basis for run- of -mine coal.” The statement itself 
 was made for the purpose of showing that where the people on both sides of the 
 labor question meet in joint conference and are governed in their actions by rea- 
 son, logic and facts, laboring men can secure increased wages without the 
 necessity of strikes. 
 
 17 
 
X 
 
 Q. Was not the advance of 1898, however, a restoration of 
 the previous reduction? — A. Well, of course it was the result 
 of the strike that had taken place — the strike of 1897. 
 
 Q. Do you think that the result of these conferences has 
 been to produce a better understanding between the operators 
 and the men? — A. Very much better. 
 
 Q. Do you think the feeling in that section covered by the 
 four States is a result of this coming together? — A. It is. I can 
 speak with confidence of Illinois. I know that the relations are 
 far more cordial than they have been at any time. 
 
 Q. Have you any means of getting the number of opera- 
 tives coming within the scope of the system in the four States? 
 — A. About 175,000. 
 
 Q. Is that number greater at the present time than during 
 1897?— A. Well, slightly. 
 
 Q. Is it much greater than it was in 1895? — A. Greater than 
 in 1895, yes; somewhat greater than in 1897, but exactly how 
 much I am not able to tell. 
 
 Q. Has machinery to any great extent been introduced in the 
 mining of coal in these four States? — A. Yes, 
 
 Q. And what has been the effect of the introduction of the 
 machines in their relation to the number of men employed?— 
 A. Where they have been able to operate them successfully, of 
 course it has had the effect of reducing the number of men. In 
 Illinois the operation of machines has not been very successful, 
 so far as operators are concerned, because of the opposition of the 
 miners to the machines. They insist on pick mining, claiming 
 that they can make better wages even with the reduced differen- 
 tial in that State. 
 
 Q. Has the thickness of the vein anything to do with the 
 success of the machines? — A. The thicker the veins the more 
 successfully the machines work. Now in the northern section 
 of Iilinois they use no machines at all, but/ they are used in the 
 southern and central part of the State. 
 
 Q. Has this agreement between operatives and operators had 
 any effect upon the number of days’ work in the year secured by 
 the operatives? — A. It has not in the State of Illinois; but what 
 its effect has been in other States I can not tell. 
 
 Q. Do you think that the number of days’ work the men are 
 employed is greater than it was in 1894, 1895, and 1896? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. That would be due possibly to the increase A. (In- 
 
 terrupting) Expansion and improvement of trade; yes. 
 
 Q. I asked you to state something about the agreement 
 under which you work. Let me see if I understand that agree- 
 ment. As I understand it, you, as representing the employers, 
 are given full authority to arbitrate any difficulty that may 
 arise? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. That you meet in that arbitration some representative of 
 the workingmen at the head of the organization, or someone in 
 
 18 
 
the locality where that work is located, and that you as rep- 
 resentative of the employers and the representative of the em- 
 ployees come together, and if you two agree that is the final 
 settlement? — A. Yes; that is final. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Kennedy.) I should like to ask you if the in- 
 fluence of these agreements has spread into the States of Iowa, 
 Kansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia to any extent? — A. It 
 has. Kentucky has adopted almost verbatim the language of 
 our State agreements. The State of Iowa has also patterned 
 after our agreement of 1900. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Litchman.) Is there any objection to stating 
 why the operators were unwilling to admit Iowa and Michigan 
 into the convention? — A. I have not any objection. The 
 objection comes chiefly, of course, from the East. If Iowa and 
 Michigan were admitted it might possibly mean that Pennsyl- 
 vania and Ohio’s influence in the interstate movement would 
 not be so well balanced with the West as it is today. The con- 
 tention of Pennsylvania and Ohio has been from the start that 
 no other State should be admitted into the interstate move- 
 ment until West Virginia was brought in. That you will find very 
 fully set forth in the discussion of the subject at the interstate 
 convention which was held at Columbus in January.* 
 
 Q. Is there any movement under way toward securing the 
 co-operation of the West Virginia coal fields, either on the part 
 of operators or on the part of the men employed, so far as you 
 know? — A. The miners’ organization is endeavoring to bring 
 the miners of that State into the organization, but so far as I 
 was able to judge from the discussion at Columbus the success so 
 far has not been very great. No effort, in my opinion, has been 
 made at all on the part of the operators to bring West Virginia 
 into the movement. 
 
 Q. The product of West Virginia comes in direct competition 
 with Pennsylvania and Ohio? — A. Yes; and also with that of 
 Indiana and Illinois. 
 
 Q. So much so as Pennsylvania? — A. Not so much so, but 
 it comes largely into competition. West Virginia coal is sold to 
 a very large extent now in the Chicago market, and the Chicago 
 market formerly was the chief distributing point for Indiana 
 and Illinois coal. 
 
 Q. What would you say as to the competition at the sea- 
 board? — A. As to the competition at the seaboard I am not 
 prepared to speak. I imagine, of course, that the competition 
 as between West Virginia and Pennsylvania and Ohio is very 
 
 *Also because even with only four States the interests are so diverse that 
 under the unit rule it is exceedingly difficult to reach an agreement in joint inter- 
 state conventions, and the problem would become still more intricate with 
 other States added, and might under the unit rule become insoluble ; while, 
 without the protection of the unit rule, perhaps no State would be willing to 
 enter the convention at all, 
 
 19 
 

 sharp, but as to the competition of Illinois and Indiana with 
 West Virginia at the seaboard I am not able to say. 
 
 Q. It would seem to be for the interest of the operators as well 
 as the men to have West Virginia brought into the agreements, 
 then, would it not? — A. I should not care to express myself on 
 that subject, because, as I said before, I am not sufficiently 
 familiar with that phase of the subject to make my opinion 
 worth anything. Besides, it might be a little embarrassing for 
 me as representative of the operators of only one State. It 
 might appear that I was criticizing the operators in another 
 State. 
 
 Q. I might ask the question more with reference to the 
 sentiment among the people whom you represent toward such 
 a union of interest ? — A. The operators of the W est would be 
 very glad to see West Virginia in the movement. 
 
 Q. That is the point I wish to bring out.— A. Yes; I would 
 not hesitate to say to an operator in Pennsylvania exactly 
 what I think in regard to the matter, but I should not like to 
 appear as criticizing the course they pursue and the stand they 
 take. 
 
 k Q. (By Mr. Kennedy.) Is it the cheaper labor cost in West 
 Virginia that enables the operators to send their coal to Illinois 
 in competition with that of Illinois? — A. That is the contention. 
 
 Q. That is one very strong reason why the operators in 
 these Western States would like to see West Virginia in the 
 agreement? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Clarke.) Is it not a fact that there is consider- 
 able difference between the two coals? — A. Yes; but the scale 
 of wages is always fixed differentially; that is to say, if there is a 
 difference in the coal there is a difference in the mining scale. 
 For example, the rate is much higher for the thin veins than the 
 thick veins, although it is fixed on a competitive basis; it is not 
 fixed at all on the earning capacity of the men, because in the 
 northern part of Illinois if a man averaged $2.25 or $2.50 a day 
 he would be making a fair average, while in the southern part 
 of the State, where the veins are thick, the men of course could 
 earn much larger wages, provided they worked as regularly as 
 in the northern field. 
 
 Q. My question did not have reference to the thinness or the 
 thickness of the veins or to the ease with which the coal can be 
 mined in either, but with reference to the quality of the coal 
 for certain uses. For example, is it not a fact that much of the 
 West Virginia coal is more on the cannel order, and is used for 
 household use in preference to the soft coal of Illinois? — A. Yes, 
 I presume that is true, but I do not believe that that class of 
 coal to which you refer is one that comes in competition with 
 the Illinois coal. The coal that is used for steam purposes 
 comes in competition with Illinois coal. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Kennedy.) Do your people understand that the 
 
 20 
 
Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad is giving abnormally low rates 
 for the purpose of getting that coal into the Chicago markets ? 
 —A. It may be known, of course, to the operators, but as I 
 said before, the question of the price of coal is something about 
 which I do not concern myself at all. I purposely avoid having 
 any part either in the fixing of the scale of wages or in determin- 
 ing the selling price of coal, because I think that if I should take 
 any part in the matter in establishing the scale of wages and 
 mining conditions or the selling price it would be more difficult 
 for me to deal justly and fairly when a dispute arises between 
 the operators and miners. It is distinctly understood in our 
 State organization that the association is to have nothing what- 
 ever to do with the selling part of the coal business. 
 
 Q. In reply to a question a while ago, I believe it was not 
 plain from your statement that the increased wages of the 
 miners were put upon the consumer in the increase in the price 
 of coal. Other witnesses at Chicago on this same subject un- 
 doubtedly said that that is where increased wages are put. — A. 
 It is possible they are right. The advance, however, is not 
 appreciable, except in so far as there is an advance taking place 
 possibly in every other commodity. The cost of living is higher. 
 There is not an article a miner buys, or anyone else, that does 
 not cost more money than it cost before the advance in wages to 
 which you refer. But the mere fact of the joint agreement, in 
 my opinion, does not act in any way as a tax upon the public. On 
 the contrary, it makes the conditions of trade more stable, it 
 establishes a fairer scale of wages, and it insures to the different 
 operators greater safety in their business. They are enabled 
 to operate the mines a greater number of days, and that gives 
 to the miners steadier work and so increases the volume of busi- 
 ness of the country. In every way the system seems to me to 
 be a great help to the public, because upon the steady employ- 
 ment and upon the fair wages of the masses depends the prosper- 
 ity of our country. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Litchman.) How is the expense of this com- 
 mission of yours met? — A. An assessment is levied upon the ton- 
 nage of every mine in the State belonging to the association — 
 so much for every thousand tons. 
 
 Q. What contribution comes from the workmen? — A. None 
 whatever. They sustain their own organization. 
 
 Q. You have submitted here various printed documents. 
 Are these supplied by your association? — A. These are supplied 
 by our association exclusively. 
 
 Q. Are they paid for by your association? — A. Yes; they 
 are paid for by the association of the operators. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Farquhar.) You have taken quite an interest 
 and have been personally present at quite a number of confer- 
 ences here in respect to arbitration. State and national. What 
 have you to say as to any proposition that would lead to what 
 
 21 
 
you would call national arbitration, as far as all manufacturing 
 and productive interests of the country are concerned? — A. 
 Whatever form of arbitration or conciliation we may adopt, 
 it should be purely voluntary. It should be arbitration or 
 conciliation within the respective industries involved. I have 
 made a few notes on that particular phase of the subject, which, 
 maybe, it would be best for me to read. 
 
 (Reading:) 
 
 “Need of a National Organization. — We have reached a 
 period in industrial evolution where men on both the employer 
 and the labor side are looking for points of agreement instead 
 of looking, as was once the case, for differences. Under the old 
 dispensation it was strife and war and injustice; under the new 
 dispensation it can and will be peace, prosperity, and justice. 
 
 “Not only we here in our own land, but men all over the 
 world, are looking for some way to remove the costly and 
 annoying conflicts between employer and employee. We believe 
 that plan will be found in our country, and it will be a simple, 
 just and effective plan. Conciliation, mediation, or arbitration 
 should be sought, where it is at all possible, before a strike or 
 lockout, and not afterwards. An earnest effort should always 
 be made to settle differences and disputes as near their source as 
 possible, and at once, before calling in outside help. The pros- 
 perity of our nation is built upon steady and profitable employ- 
 ment for the toiling masses. It is therefpre a mutual benefit to 
 employer and employee that wages be fair, employment steady, 
 and conditions of life agreeable. There should be and there is 
 no objection from intelligent sources today, we believe, to 
 paying for the best service of which the laborer is capable the 
 maximum of wages, for in no other way is the aggregate wealth 
 of the nation so legitimately, so securely, and so fairly increased. 
 
 “Differences do not, as a rule, arise because this principle is 
 disputed, but because employer and employee too often go 
 about the work in a bungling and blundering way. 
 
 “By organization we must secure the services of men of 
 experience, courage, and enthusiasm to study the needs of our 
 times and to determine the remedy which must be supplied for 
 the conflicts of laborers and employees best suited to different 
 industries and for varying conditions. This work, in fact, must 
 be delegated to a body of men trained to deal with it, for they 
 must do what neither the busy American business man nor the 
 workingman has the time to do himself. 
 
 “ How to Prevent Strikes and Lockouts. — 1 . Inasmuch as 
 the laborers have organized, the organization of the employer 
 class is a prerequisite to the solution of the labor problem. Thus, 
 two great bodies being equally matched will respect each other 
 for reasons that must be apparent. They will be forced to 
 maintain pleasant business relations and to adopt conciliatory 
 methods in the treatment of all such differences and disputes as 
 may arise. 
 
“2. The several great industries of the country should 
 organize to promote general plans for each industry where 
 their interests are common. Then if, as in the coal trade, the 
 interests are too vast to admit of control by a single commission, 
 then these interests should be subdivided and commissions 
 established capable of giving them proper supervision, it being 
 important that differences and disputes be settled as near their 
 source as possible. 
 
 “3. Trade agreements between these organizations in the 
 respective industries for fixed periods of time, say for one or 
 two years, will prove, as they have proven in the bituminous 
 coal industry, a mighty agency in promoting industrial peace. 
 Even where the employers have not properly organized them- 
 selves into active working bodies, this system of trade agree- 
 ments has proven a great benefit to both employers and 
 employees. 
 
 “But it should be borne in mind that these organizations 
 should deal with the labor question and with no other. To 
 undertake to regulate prices of the different products of in- 
 dustry would be destruction to the system.” 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Farquhar.) These various conferences in refer- 
 ence to arbitration and conciliation were originated by the 
 Civic Federation of Chicago? — A. The National Civic Federa- 
 tion of Chicago. The first conference was held in Chicago on 
 December the 17th and 18th of last year, and in that the repre- 
 sentatives of the employer and employee class participated. 
 They were in practical accord upon the one general idea that 
 some plan of conciliation rather than arbitration was necessary; 
 that it should be some simple plan, and that it should be a 
 purely business plan. The universal sentiment at that confer- 
 ence was that conciliation or arbitration should always precede 
 and not follow a strike or lockout. The idea was indorsed that 
 has been promulgated in the State of Illinois, that pending 
 every investigation the men and works should continue in 
 operation. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Clarke.) You say conciliation should precede 
 and not follow? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. If it fails to precede, may it not follow? — A. Certainly; but 
 it is much preferable, much easier to settle a difficulty that has 
 not already resulted in open conflict. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Farquhar.) To those who participated in the 
 original conference, how many additions did you find at New 
 York conference? — A. That is extremely difficult to say, but we 
 found at the conference at Chicago quite a number of men prom- 
 inent both in the industries of the country and in labor circles, 
 that did not participate in the conference at New York. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Litchman.) But you found more in New York 
 than in Chicago. — A. Yes; and there were men present at New 
 York who were not present at Chicago. 
 
 23 
 
Q. (By Mr. Farquhar.) You said very distinctly in your 
 paper and remarks there that you believe it is trade conciliation 
 and arbitration ? — A. Yes, 
 
 Q. Has your conference taken a step beyond that in reaching 
 toward compulsory arbitration? — A. It has opposed compul- 
 sory arbitration. 
 
 Q. Opposed it? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. You have quite an experience in coal mining; do you 
 think it is the natural way for these matters of conciliation or 
 arbitration to be entirely in the trade affected and the persons 
 affected? — A. To me it seems natural and best. 
 
 Q. So you do not look with much favor on State boards of 
 arbitration made up of men who know nothing of the trade con- 
 ditions or the technicality of the business? — A. I do not. In 
 the first place, unless under State arbitration the decrees of the 
 board can be enforced they are practically of no value. They 
 are not respected as arbitration is respected where it has been 
 rendered by individuals who are unofficial, who do not act in any 
 official capacity, but who understand the industry involved and 
 its conditions. Take, for example, the State of Illinois. Dur- 
 ing the past year there has not been a single case referred to the 
 State board of arbitration. They have endeavored to exercise, 
 and have exercised their influence for conciliation, but if, for 
 example, a coal operator was willing to submit a case for 
 arbitration, a miner would not, and if a miner wanted to refer a 
 case to that board for arbitration, the operator would not. I do 
 not intend this as any reflection upon the present board. My 
 criticism is upon the system itself. 
 
 Q. Now, if the policy of conciliation and arbitration was on a 
 trade basis — the carpenters, bricklayers, etc. — could your unfor- 
 tunate building strike have occurred in Chicago if that had been 
 the means of settling these troubles? — A. I think not. It 
 seems to me that there should be a national organization that 
 will take in hand this whole question of conciliation or arbi- 
 tration. Not that this national organization will always 
 arbitrate or conciliate, but it will bring together the leaders of 
 thought on the side of labor and on the employers’ side, and 
 they could agree upon certain fixed principles that when once 
 established by the leaders will be consented to by those who 
 follow. Now, simply to give you an illustration of what I 
 mean, the disposition of labor leaders a year ago was to entourage 
 the sympathetic strike. I do not believe that there is a reput- 
 able leader oi labor in the United States today who is willing to 
 subscribe to the idea of the sympathetic strike, because it 
 immediately invalidates these agreements that are entered into 
 between the employer and employee. If, for example, in the 
 coal trade, the operators and the miners made an agreement, 
 and the carpenters in an adjoining town were on a strike, there 
 would be, under the old system of sympathetic strike, no gain at 
 
 24 
 
all by the operator and miner entering into an agreement, 
 because the fact that here was a man who had a difference or 
 dispute with his employer would immediately render void the 
 agreement in another industry, where all conditions are per- 
 fectly satisfactory. Then, too, it seems to me, that a national 
 organization of that sort would have the effect of determining 
 what class of labor shall be allotted to these respective organiza- 
 tions. For example, the Mine Workers’ Union for a number 
 of years has endeavored to bring into their organization every 
 man working in or about a mine. They have endeavored to 
 bring in all the men employed on construction work, and to 
 bring in the watchmen and hoisting engineers. Now, the 
 watchman is and should be a strictly company man; the 
 hoisting engineers have an organization of their own. Then 
 the hoisting engineers have a class of labor altogether differ- 
 ent from that of the men in the mine. There are more repre- 
 sentative of the direct interests of the company; they have so 
 much more on their shoulders; their responsibility is so much 
 greater that they ought not to be merged with an organization 
 where they are possibly outnumbered 100 or 200 to 1. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Litchman). Have you gone far enough to con- 
 sider a situation where one side or the other desires to have an 
 investigation leading to conciliation, possibly to arbitration, and 
 the other side refuses to permit such a thingf For instance, on 
 a great line of railway, on a line of street railway, the men have 
 a grievance, or think they have — the result is the same to them 
 whether it is real or fancied — and they ask that that grievance 
 be investigated, and the request is peremptorily refused by the 
 corporation. How would you reach a case like that unless you 
 had some law that would compel the inception of conciliation ? 
 — A. I think public opinion is sufficiently potent to accomplish 
 that. 
 
 Q. Has it been so? — A. I think so. Of course the St. Louis 
 strike wore itself out, but in the Albany street railway strike 
 now in progress, very likely public sentiment will force both 
 sides to consent to conciliation or arbitration of some kind. 
 
 Q. But you have already cited the St. Louis strike, where 
 public sentiment was certainly in favor of the men and yet the 
 companies refused to arbitrate even to the last, and the strike was 
 a failure. Why could there not be some power, not to compel 
 arbitration, but to compel the inception of the conciliation, 
 at least to the extent of an inquiry into the rights or wrongs of 
 the disputef — A. No doubt there should be some way of insti- 
 tuting the inquiry, but to compel arbitration 
 
 Q. (Interrupting.) I am not asking you that. I am asking 
 now in the quasi-public corporations? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Where there are three sides to the dispute — the men em- 
 ployed, the people who employ, and the public at large — the 
 only recourse now is to strike, if one side or the other refuses to 
 
 25 
 
conciliate ? — A. I take it that some law will be necessary where 
 corporations are concerned which have public functions to 
 perform, for instituting inquiry into the cause. 
 
 Q. You see no harm, then, in a law of that kind? — A. No. 
 
 Q. But would not favor a law that would compel arbitra- 
 tion? — A. No. 
 
 Q. I wanted to draw that distinction, that is all? — A. I see. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Farquhar.) The matter you are just discussing 
 rests on this fact, that as a general thing the employers of labor 
 will not recognize the unions or organized bodies of men. Don’t 
 you find that is your greatest trouble in getting these agree- 
 ments, the non-recognition of organized labor in making agree- 
 ments? — A. That is the great difficulty in the matter of organi- 
 zation of the employer class, because a large percentage of the 
 employers of labor are not willing to recognize organized labor. 
 
 Q. And yet, don’t you think there are some business reasons 
 why the operators of great plants or industries feel a disinclina- 
 tion to make the agreements, because the markets of various zones 
 of different geographical sections, are so dissimilar that any- 
 thing like a uniform scale would work harm to the community ? 
 — A. Undoubtedly. 
 
 Q. And is it not a fact that even among capitalists them- 
 selves — the owners of great industries, in stove manufacturing, 
 or something of that kind — they have so many troubles among 
 themselves as owners of great plants and sellers of commodities 
 that it is almost impossible for them to reach an arrangement 
 with the workingmen? — A, Yes; but in the industry to which 
 you refer, the stove industry, they have an organization of the 
 employer class. 
 
 Q. But before they had it they had many strikes? — A. They 
 came with painful frequency. 
 
 Q. Was there any trade in the United States that had as 
 many strikes as the stove molders? — A. None, that is true; they 
 were very disastrous. 
 
 Q. But does not that enter a good deal into the difficulty of 
 making your arrangements that you can not get the operators 
 or the owners to agree even among themselves before they agree 
 with the operatives? — A. Yes; for example, in the coal industry 
 the operators have not always agreed among themselves.* 
 
 Q. Is not the matter of self-interest among employers, in- 
 dependent of this non-recognition of organized labor, one of the 
 greatest difficulties in getting your agreements that you are 
 looking for through your national organization? — A. Un- 
 doubtedly. 
 
 *In Illinois, for example, the coal operators were utterly unable to agree as 
 between the different districts, or even (with the single exception of northern 
 Illinois) as between the miners of any given district, until compelled by the 
 State Miners’ organization to agree with them. The common need, as against 
 an aggressive labor organization, brought the coal operators of Illinois together. 
 
 2 (> 
 
Q. You think it is a matter of bringing together and dis- 
 cussing these things that will ultimately clear the ground for the 
 agreement between the workingman and the capitalist f — A. 
 It is only a question of time. After these matters have been 
 discussed with intelligence and calmness, it is only a question of 
 time when they will right themselves, and, as I said before, 
 some simple and effective plan will be found. Now, no plan 
 will be found that is applicable alike to all industries or to all 
 sections, but some general principles can be laid down by the 
 employers of labor and by organized labor jointly that will have 
 the effect which we desire. 
 
 There is one thing I neglected to say in speaking of the Illinois 
 plan which perhaps I had better submit now. That is this, that 
 the last clause of the existing agreement provides — and we 
 found that this had a very wholesome effect — that “There shall 
 be no demands made locally that are not specifically set forth 
 in this agreement, except as agreed to in joint subdistrict 
 meetings held prior to May 1, 1901. Where no subdistriets 
 exist, local grievances shall be referred to the United Mine 
 Workers’ State executive board and the mine owners interested.” 
 
 (Testimony closed.) 
 
 27 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 DECISION OF COMMISSION SELECTED BY THE OPER= 
 ATORS AND MINERS OF THE DANVILLE SUB=DIS= 
 TRICT TO INTERPRET THE SIXTEENTH 
 CLAUSE OF THE CURRENT STATE 
 AGREEMENT. 
 
 Chicago, April 27, 1901. 
 
 Mr. 0 . L. Garrison , President , 
 
 The Illinois Coal Operators Association. 
 
 Mr. W. R. Russell , President , 
 
 United Mine-Workers of America , District N o. 12. 
 
 Gentlemen: — The operators and miners in the Danville sub- 
 district adopted an agreement for the scale year beginning 
 April 1, 1901, in which is included the sixteenth clause of the 
 current State agreement, as follows: 
 
 “16th. (a) The scale of prices herein provided shall include, 
 except in extraordinary conditions, the work required to load 
 coal and properly timber the working places in the mine, and 
 the operator shall be required to furnish the necessary props 
 and timber in rooms or working face. And in long wall mines 
 it shall include the proper mining of the coal and the brushing 
 and care of the working places and roadway according to the 
 present method and rules relating thereto, which shall con- 
 tinue unchanged. 
 
 “ (b) If any miner shall fail to properly timber and care for 
 his working place, and such failure shall entail falls of slate, 
 rock and the like, or if by reckless or improper shooting of the 
 coal in room and pillar mines, the mine props and other timbers 
 shall be disturbed or unnecessary falls result, the miner whose 
 fault has occasioned such damage shall repair the same without 
 compensation; and if such miner fails to repair such damage, 
 he shall be discharged. 
 
 28 
 
“In cases where the mine manager directs the placing of 
 cross-bars to permanently secure the roadway, then, and in 
 such cases only, the miner shall be paid at the current price for 
 each cross-bar when properly set. 
 
 “ The above does not contemplate any change from the ordi- 
 nary method of timbering by the miner for his own safety.” 
 
 When it came to working under the district agreement 
 numerous disputes arose as to what constituted ordinary and 
 what extraordinary conditions; that is to say, what dead work 
 should be performed by the miner without further compensa- 
 tion than pay for the coal sent out, or when, in the meaning of 
 that clause, the company should assume the dead work either 
 by having company men perform it, or allowing the miner extra 
 compensation therefor. There was also a disagreement as to 
 the method of shearing entry coal. 
 
 At a joint meeting of the miners and operators of the Dan- 
 ville sub-district, held on April 11, and which was also attended 
 by the State officers of the Mine Workers’ Union of America, 
 the following agreement was adopted: 
 
 “That the questions now in dispute in the Danville district, 
 namely, the interpretation and application of the sixteenth 
 clause of the Springfield agreement and the method of shearing 
 the entry coal, be referred to Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Justi for 
 settlement, and their decision shall be binding. Work at the 
 mines shall resume and continue pending the settlement under 
 the agreement of 1901 and now in force. In case the decision 
 is against the operators, the miners shall be paid for the work 
 done under protest. 
 
 “The parties herein named are to take up the matter and 
 dispose of it at once. 
 
 “The rock down in the places at the resumption of work is to 
 be cleaned up by the operators.” 
 
 In accordance with the foregoing reference, and after giving 
 full and careful consideration to the various contentions, we 
 submit the following findings, together with sundry recommen- 
 dations which we feel convinced will obviate most of the 
 troubles complained of, provided both operators and miners 
 will undertake to follow them in a spirit of fairness. 
 
 The purpose of the sixteenth clause in the State agreement 
 was, undoubtedly, to confirm and make effective certain 
 necessary changes or reforms of abuses which were promised the 
 operators of the Danville district, along with the other operators 
 of Illinois, when the interstate settlement was made at Columbus 
 this year. At the beginning of the interstate convention the 
 operators were asking and contending for a differential in the 
 mining price at Danville as against competing mines in Indiana; 
 also for the same system of mining prevailing in the other states, 
 as well as for an equivalent machine differential. When it 
 became apparent that an interstate agreement for another 
 
 29 
 
year could only be reached by substantially reaffirming the 
 Indianapolis agreement, it developed that the Danville opera- 
 tors contended that their cost of producing coal had been 
 materially increased by reason of local exactions in the way of 
 dead work growing out of the expense of handling what the 
 operators claimed were unnecessary falls of rock and the like. 
 They claimed that the mine-run system had not only injured 
 the quality of their coal by reason of the increased percentage 
 of fine coal produced, but that it had also increased the amount 
 of dead work to be done at the expense of the company, in that 
 the miner in shooting down as much coal as he could, without 
 any regard to its quality or to the proportion of fine coal, brought 
 down an excessive amount of rock and shot out an excessive 
 number of timbers and props. This increased dead work, the 
 result of the miners’ own carelessness or unworkmanlike 
 methods, had, by local exactions and otherwise, come to be 
 saddled on the operators, and they could not see their way to 
 renew the Indianapolis agreement unless they were promised 
 some relief. This relief they contended should be such as 
 would improve the quality of their mine-run coal and relieve 
 them of such dead work as the miner should reasonably per- 
 form as a part of the mining price, as well as such dead work 
 resulting from improper mining and timbering. In other 
 words, the ordinary conditions of mining taken into account, 
 the miner should assume, in consideration of the mining 
 price, the necessary timbering to properly secure his working 
 place and the ordinary amount of dead work, such as handling 
 rock and slate, incident to the production of marketable coal; 
 and if the miner disregarded the quality of his product and 
 incurred an excessive amount of dead work, they contended 
 that it was not proper that the operators should be penalized 
 by this imposition of unnecessary dead work, in addition to 
 paying the miner for an inferior grade of mine-run coal. 
 
 In view of this contention on the part of the Illinois operators, 
 and in order to obtain an agreement at Columbus, it was nec- 
 essary to give them assurance that these abuses would be 
 corrected if found true. When the Illinois operators met at 
 Springfield the matter was fully discussed and clause sixteen of 
 the State agreement of 1901 was the result. It was well 
 understood, when this clause was adopted, that it was intended 
 to reform certain abuses, that the cost of producing coal in 
 the State of Illinois should not be thereby increased, but rather 
 reduced, and it was mutually agreed that this could be done 
 without materially reducing the earnings of miners who did 
 their work in a skillful and conscientious manner. 
 
 In the prosecution of our work we have scrupulously endeav- 
 ored to separate ourselves entirely from the special interests 
 which at other times we are called upon to serve, and to deal 
 with the case submitted to us with judicial fairness. On 
 
April 23rd, accompanied by the State and sub-district repre- 
 sentatives of the United Mine Workers and representatives of 
 the operators, we visited four different mines, viz.: Himrod, 
 Kelly’s No. 2, Catlin and Fairmont. Under the guidance of the 
 pit committee and the mine foreman we made a personal inspec- 
 tion of the conditions of the working places to assist us in 
 determining what should be properly defined as “ordinary” or 
 “extraordinary” conditions of the roof in working places. We 
 also secured all the information possible from the pit committees 
 and others with whom we came in contact. At the conclusion 
 of our investigations, while we find it impracticable to define 
 specifically what should at all times be considered an “ordi- 
 nary” or “extraordinary” -condition, we feel that much of the 
 trouble and contention has often been occasioned by antagonism 
 between, the miners working in the several mines and their 
 respective mine foreman. If this unnecessary feeling of 
 antagonism could be eliminated they would both be able to act 
 with a greater degree of fairness. 
 
 We found that in some of the working places proper care had 
 not been exercised by the miners in propping the roof; also that 
 in some instances shots had been placed in an impracticable 
 manner which had resulted in timbers being unnecessarily 
 blown out, and as a consequence the roof had fallen in. ' In 
 determining these matters, and disputes growing out of them, 
 in the Grape Creek and Danville districts, during the balance 
 of the scale year we recommend and decide that the following 
 rules be observed: 
 
 1st. That the general purpose of the clause, as set forth in the 
 introduction to this report, be kept in mind, and that miners 
 and operators alike assume their respective obligations there- 
 under in a spirit of mutual fairness and conciliation. 
 
 2nd. That the miners must use good judgment in order to 
 reduce to the minimum the number of props and timbers blown 
 out. 
 
 3rd. That the miners must use every precaution to prevent 
 falls of rock by placing a sufficient number of timbers in their 
 working places. 
 
 4th. That whenever it is shown that props have been blown 
 out through bad judgment or because of an impractical man- 
 ner of placing the shots, the rock must be cleaned at the expense 
 of the miner. 
 
 5th. That where a certain amount of slate or rock comes 
 down with the coal in the usual and ordinary course of mining 
 and timbering, it is and should be recognized as the usual 
 condition in that place or room, and the miner shall handle 
 such rock or slate without compensation other than pay for the 
 coal. But where unusual conditions are encountered, such as 
 faults or rolls, and unusual falls of rock or slate result in spite of 
 proper care and precaution on the miner’s part, both as to 
 
 31 
 
timbering and shooting, the company shall allow the miner 
 extra compensation for handling such rock or slate, or clean it 
 up as promptly as possible with company men. Or in case 
 the ordinary conditions of any room, by reason of an excessive 
 amount of rock or slate coming with the coal, shall be such that 
 an average skilled miner cannot make a fair day’s wage, then 
 the company shall allow him at least enough to make up that 
 deficiency. 
 
 Where the miner feels that rock-falls should be paid for or 
 handled by the company, as above provided, before such rock is 
 cleared, the mine foreman should be consulted and if it is deter- 
 mined that the miner is not to blame and that he is to clear 
 such rock for extra compensation, the amount he is to receive 
 shall be agreed upon in advance. 
 
 6th. Should the miner and mine foreman fail to agree, either 
 as to the responsibility for the work or the price to be allowed 
 in case the responsibility is agreed to be upon the company, 
 then the pit committee shall be called in. If the pit committee 
 and mine foreman fail to agree, either as to who should perform 
 the work, or as to the price (in case it is agreed that the work 
 devolves upon the company) to be paid the miner for clearing 
 such falls, work must be continued and the question referred to 
 the sub-district president and the commissioner of the Danville 
 District Coal Operators Association. 
 
 7th. The miners shall shoot their coal so as to produce as 
 large a percentage of marketable lump coal as is consistent 
 with good workmanship and practical mining skill. 
 
 8th. The mine foreman shall, in all cases, furnish miners with a 
 sufficient supply of timber and cap-pieces, of size and dimen- 
 sions best suited for the protection of the roof in the working 
 places. 
 
 9th. When the roof falls as the result of horsebacks, rolls or 
 other extraordinary conditions, as more particularly defined in 
 the 5th paragraph above, which could not be held up by the 
 exercise of care and good judgment on the part of the miner, 
 and which cannot be thrown back in a reasonable length of time, 
 the mine foreman shall pay the miner an amount consistent 
 with the work performed, or send company men to do the work. 
 
 10th. In cases where timbers are blown out through no fault 
 of the miner, and the miner can show this to have been the case, 
 and where the indications are that the miner has used good 
 judgment, falls of rock resulting therefrom will be cleared at 
 the expense of the company. 
 
 In addition to the foregoing rules we would recommend in a 
 general way that the pit committee and the mine foreman, in 
 considering and determining questions in dispute, treat each 
 other courteously and make an honest endeavor to reach a 
 conclusion which will be absolutely equitable and fair to all 
 parties in interest. 
 
 32 
 
Where a miner feels that he has any claim on the company 
 for extra compensation on account of any rock to be cleared up, 
 the question should be taken up at once and adjusted on its 
 merits in the manner above set forth, and the mine foreman 
 should make a special effort to see that such claims are given 
 prompt and fair consideration. But the mine foreman 
 should not give any miner the option of doing such work with 
 the understanding that the price and responsibility therefor 
 will be determined afterwards, as this is certain to lead to con- 
 tentions which cannot be adjudicated as intelligently and 
 satisfactorily as is possible where they are considered before 
 the work has been done. In settling such disputes promptly 
 the mine foreman should feel free to call in the pit committee, as 
 they are the duly accredited representatives of the miners, 
 to act for them at all times in such matters. 
 
 We have found in the course of our investigations that the 
 present methods of shearing in entries are generally satisfactory 
 to both miners and operators of the Grape Creek and Westville 
 district, and therefore assume that no decision on this point is 
 required at this time. Some modifications may be required in 
 the present system, but it seems to us likely that such modifi- 
 cations can and will be determined locally by the miners and 
 operators interested. 
 
 During our investigations, statements were exhibited by some 
 of the coal producing companies showing a very marked increase 
 in the cost of dead work — an increase that is not justified by any 
 of the terms of the interstate, State, or sub-district agreements, 
 and if this is the result of local demands, the practice should be 
 discontinued. One of these statements supplies information 
 covering the period between January, 1898, and April, 1901, and 
 shows that the cost of dead work was increased in this one mine 
 from less than 3f cents per ton to nearly 12 cents per ton. Under 
 such conditions it is easy to conclude that the mine and miners 
 must soon be thrown permanently idle. We feel confident that 
 at any mines where such burdens have been imposed steps will 
 be taken at once to afford relief. We realize the responsibilities 
 and duties which have been imposed upon us, as well as the 
 almost utter impossibility of giving to miners and operators all 
 that each could desire, but we confidently believe that the fore- 
 going decision is designed to bring about much needed reforms, 
 which, when inaugurated, need not impose any hardship upon 
 either operators or miners who sincerely desire to do right. 
 
 In conclusion, we earnestly appeal to all parties in interest to 
 proceed to apply this decision in a friendly and businesslike 
 manner, and thus avoid friction which in the past has been- so 
 disastrous to the interests of both mine owners and mine workers. 
 
 John Mitchell, 
 
 National President, United Mine Workers of America. 
 
 Herman Justi, 
 
 Commissioner, The Illinois Coal Operators Association. 
 
 33 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 PRESIDENT JOHN MITCHELL’S APPEAL TO ILLINOIS 
 MINERS TO CORRECT ABUSES OF THE 
 MINE-RUN SYSTEM. 
 
 The following letter from Mr. John Mitchell, National Presi- 
 dent, United Mine Workers of America, addressed to the 
 officers and members of District 12, explains itself: 
 
 OFFICE NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 
 
 UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA. 
 
 Indianapolis, Ind., August 3, 1901. 
 To the Officers and Members of District 12, U. M. W. of A. 
 
 Brothers: — I am in receipt of a communication from Mr. 
 Herman Justi, Commissioner of the Illinois Coal Operators 
 Association, which is so vitally important to the interests of the 
 mine workers of that state and also to the mine workers of the 
 entire country, that I deem it advisable to submit' it for the 
 consideration of all local unions in Illinois, with the hope that 
 its contents will receive the most careful attention. 
 
 Commissioner Justi ’s communication reads as follows: 
 
 Chicago, July 19, 1901. 
 Mr. John Mitchell, National President, 
 
 United Mine Workers of America, Indianapolis, Ind. 
 
 Dear Sir: — During the past sixty days complaints from the 
 coal mine operators have come in so thick and fast, of the 
 increased screenings, or rather of the deterioration of the quality 
 of the coal produced as the result of the mine-run system, that I 
 feel it due to your organization and to ours to bring the facts to 
 your attention. A few weeks ago, at the instance of our Execu- 
 tive Committee, and in view of these numerous complaints, 
 inquiries were sent to all the members of the Illinois Coal 
 Operators Association asking if, under our current State agree- 
 ment, any improvement was noticeable in the quality of the 
 coal produced. To our sincere regret we ascertained that no 
 improvement in the quality of the mine-run coal was noticeable, 
 either by way of a decrease in the proportion of fine coal, or an 
 improvement in the quality of the lump coal. In fact, no 
 improvement seems noticeable that can be attributed to an 
 
 34 
 
improvement of mining methods. On the contrary, in many 
 mines there has been a considerable increase in the proportion of 
 fine coal since April 1st. We have reports from nearly all the 
 larger operators in the nine scale districts of the State, and the 
 burden of their testimony is that there is no improvement in the 
 methods of mining, and consequently no decrease in the pro- 
 portion of fine coal, and no improvement whatever in the 
 quality of the lump coal. Things have grown worse instead 
 of better. 
 
 In the shooting mines there is still the same tendency to 
 overshoot the coal, that prevailed under our previous agree- 
 ments, and the use of powder at a low price is a temptation 
 which the men have not been able to resist. You need not be 
 reminded that the operators complained of this excessive use of 
 powder at our several State conventions and in all of our joint 
 meetings that have taken place since the interstate movement 
 was inaugurated. In many instances the reports to this office 
 show clearly that large consumers of coal have complained as 
 never before of the inferior quality of coal produced in the 
 State of Illinois. I have myself visited every scale district in 
 the State, and while there is less friction than formerly prevailed 
 between the coal operators and coal miners, and while I am 
 satisfied that the relations between the employer and employee 
 are more cordial than ever before, still I find that everywhere 
 the complaint is made that the quality of coal produced under 
 the mine-run system has steadily deteriorated. 
 
 At the time Illinois adopted the mine-run system the coal 
 operators of the State were assured that the mine-run system 
 would make better miners, which would result in a better 
 quality of coal being produced. I sincerely regret to say that 
 this promise has not been fulfilled — as the results conclusively 
 prove; for no one can dispute the fact, whether on the side of 
 operators or of miners, that the quality of coal produced at the 
 time the mine-run system was adopted became bad, and has 
 gradually but surely grown worse from year to year. It is due 
 to the officials of the State organization, and I believe also to the 
 officers of the local unions-generally, to say that an honest effort 
 has been made to correct the abuses of which the operators 
 complain; but as yet they have been powerless to produce the 
 desired change, and their efforts, besides being vain, have 
 tended to make them unpopular with a few men at every min- 
 ing camp, whose chief mission in life, it seems, is to give trouble. 
 This state of affairs seems to me most deplorable, and dis- 
 couraging in the extreme, for the reason that mine labor is 
 nowhere else so well paid or so well organized as in the State of 
 Illinois. For this reason, if for no other, it seems to me that 
 your National organization owes it to itself to go to the bottom 
 of this whole matter and to spare no effort to prove that organ- 
 ized labor can produce the beneficial results for capital, for 
 
 35 
 
labor, and for the general public which its advocates claim is 
 its mission. I believe a large majority of the miners have 
 desired to correct the abuses which have brought discredit upon 
 your organization, but unfortunately they allow themselves to 
 be dominated by a few mischief-makers who are constantly 
 seeking to discredit every miner who tries to do his duty by 
 giving the best service of which he is capable in return for the 
 wages he receives. These mischief-makers are in the habit, 
 where they find a miner doing something that they believe he 
 can escape doing, but which under our agreements he should do, 
 of discouraging or intimidating him, and of telling him that he is 
 giving more than our joint agreements contemplate. 
 
 Is it not high time to begin to expel men from yo\ir organiza- 
 tion who refuse to comply with the terms of our several agree- 
 ments? If this is done it will be necessary to expel only a few, 
 because in a State like Illinois, where the coal miners are so 
 solidly organized, it will be impossible for such men to obtain 
 employment elsewhere after having been expelled from your 
 union. Should you ask me, as I have been frequently asked: 
 “Why do we not discharge such offenders? ” I will reply that it 
 is well nigh impossible to discharge a miner in Illinois mines 
 without laying the mine idle in which the offender has been 
 employed. To discharge a member of your union for any cause 
 gives offense, even when his offense is admitted, which the 
 miners very generally resent. This being the case, your organiza- 
 tion must find the remedy for our trouble, the owners of the 
 mines themselves being powerless to act. 
 
 I need not remind you that in our recent interstate convention 
 at Columbus an effort was made by your organization to bring 
 the other States now parties to the interstate movement to the 
 favorable terms and conditions that had been obtained for the 
 miners in the State of Illinois. In this effort your organization 
 failed, and I am confident this was due to a knowledge on the 
 part of the Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana operators of the 
 abuse of the mine-run system in Illinois, for it is an admitted fact 
 that this pernicious practice of producing inferior coal in Illinois 
 has given to our competitors an argument which they have 
 successfully used to induce consumers of coal to buy coal not 
 produced in this State, and which accounts for a steady and 
 discouraging decline in our competitive business. 
 
 In view of all the advantages that have been gained by you 
 to advance the interests of the miners in the State of Illinois, and 
 in view of the fact that the conditions for the miners in this 
 State are more favorable than they are in any of the other States, 
 I am at a loss to understand why the Illinois operators should be 
 discriminated against by the rank and file of your organization. 
 
 You well know that the very foundations of the interstate 
 movement rest upon the principle of uniformity, and yet 
 uniformity not only does not exist, but it seems a long way off. 
 
 36 
 
As evidence of this, I desire to call your attention to the latest 
 agreement entered into between your organization and the 
 coal operators of another State. I refer to the recent joint 
 agreement of the coal miners and coal operators of Kansas. 
 Section 3 of that agreement is as follows: 
 
 “That the. companies signing this agreement reserve the right 
 “to discharge any miner or miners whose net ton of 2,000 
 “pounds of mine-run coal will not yield the same percentage of 
 “lump coal as that produced when the mine was operated on a 
 “screened coal basis. ” 
 
 Where is this injustice and discrimination to end? When may 
 we expect fair treatment? How soon will Illinois coal miners 
 give us the best service of which they are capable in return for 
 the maximum of wages which they receive and the favorable 
 conditions which they now enjoy? I sincerely hope they will 
 act and act wisely before our competitive business has been 
 thoroughly and hopelessly demoralized. If protection can be 
 given to Kansas coal operators such as is afforded in the clause 
 of their State agreement to which I have referred above, why 
 should it be denied to the coal operators of Illinois? Have we 
 been slow to recognize your organization or to concede your 
 demands? 
 
 To me it seems that unless improvement comes very soon, 
 such a clause as the one in the Kansas joint agreement must be 
 inserted in our future agreements, or else we will be forced in 
 self-defense to go back to the double standard absolutely; for no 
 other alternative will be left us. 
 
 Speaking for myself personally, I want to say frankly that I 
 believe in organized labor, just as I believe in the organization 
 of the employer class, confident that if both are properly and 
 wisely organized the best results for the public at large will be 
 secured, and I have so expressed myself unhesitatingly in 
 private and in public. Still, if the coal operators of Illinois are 
 to be thus discriminated against, it would be the height of folly 
 for the Illinois Coal Operators Association to enter another 
 interstate convention. In my opinion the whole labor problem 
 is only a business problem; it is a problem that affects not only 
 labor and the employer of labor, but, more than both of these, it 
 affects more closely the general public— which we expect and 
 desire shall deal both with the employer of labor and with labor 
 itself. If the general public is to be thus served, if it is to be thus 
 punished because the employer of labor recognizes organized 
 labor, which promises so much for the general good, and accom- 
 plishes so little, the, outlook is gloomy in the extreme. I need 
 not assure you that no one more than myself regrets the apparent 
 failure of the joint movement into which the coal operators and 
 the coal miners of the four states to the interstate agreement 
 entered some years ago, for I believe that movement to be one of 
 the wisest and the most beneficent that the ingenuity of man has 
 
 37 
 
thus far devised for the promotion of harmony in the industrial 
 world; provided, however, that the promises and pledges of its 
 promoters can be fulfilled.. But a good and great movement like 
 this one is easily destroyed unless the principles underlying it 
 are supported and sustained by the honesty and intelligence of 
 all the parties to it; and my object in writing to you thus freely 
 and fully is prompted by a desire to co-operate with you to the 
 end that the purposes of our joint movement may be accom- 
 plished, and so prolong the life of that movement for an indefi- 
 nite period. 
 
 Just how I may best co-operate with you and your associates, I 
 would be glad to have you indicate. I myself am unable to say 
 exactly what should be done. But one thing is certain, and that 
 is that the percentage of screenings in Illinois must be reduced 
 and that the general quality of the output of our mines must be 
 improved. Unless this is done “chaos will come again, ” and the 
 situation in Illinois will, I fear, be worse than ever before known. 
 
 Give this matter your serious consideration and let me have 
 your views as to the best plan to correct the evils of which we 
 complain, at your earliest convenience. 
 
 With great respect, I am, 
 
 Very sincerely yours, 
 
 Herman Justi, 
 
 Commissioner. 
 
 You will observe that Mr. Justi, speaking for the Illinois 
 Coal Operators Association, complains bitterly against the 
 quality of coal which is being produced in that state, and says, in 
 effect, that the operators of Illinois cannot be expected to 
 participate in future interstate joint conventions unless a better 
 grade of coal is mined. 
 
 In connection with this subject I desire to say that from time 
 immemorial the miners of our country have fought and struggled 
 for the abolition of the pernicious system of paying for coal after 
 it has been screened. It has been the constant claim of the 
 officers of your union, both in conventions and elsewhere, that 
 the adoption of the run-of-mine, or gross-weight, system would 
 remove the causes of countless strikes, and would tend to elevate 
 the standard of workmanship among our craftsmen ; and if these 
 results have not been secured in Illinois, I have no hesitancy 
 whatever in saying that our run-of-mine system cannot be 
 maintained should opportunity to return to the old screened-coal 
 system present itself to the operators. 
 
 38 
 
Permit me also to remind the miners of Illinois that four of the 
 jmost important coal-producing States are still working under a 
 [double standard; and our only hope of ever being able to secure, 
 ‘by agreement, the single run-of-mine system in Indiana, Ohio 
 jand western Pennsylvania, lies in our ability to prove to the 
 ^operators that the run-of-mine system in Illinois has not lowered 
 the standard of workmanship or deteriorated the value of the 
 jcoal produced there. If we are able to prove in the next 
 (interstate joint convention that the quality of the coal produced 
 jin Illinois and the standard of workmanship among the miners 
 !has been improved, I am confident that we shall be able to 
 forever wipe out of existence, in other States, the method of 
 paying for coal after it has been screened. 
 
 | On the other hand, permit me to remind you that the Illinois 
 jrniners and operators cannot hope to retain the trade which 
 broperly belongs to them unless the same conditions of mining 
 jvhich prevail in Illinois are extended to the States of Indiana, 
 Ohio and Western Pennsylvania; and I am sure that it must be 
 ftianifest to every thoughtful miner in Illinois that it would be 
 disastrous if, through lack of proper gare in the production of 
 ,poal, the trade which belongs to them were driven into other 
 'listricts. It seems to me that in view of the many hardships 
 (endured by the Illinois miners in establishing the run-of-mine 
 system, it would be a calamity indeed were they to lose it now, or 
 pe compelled to strike for its maintenance; and I do not know of 
 jany circumstance which would be more injurious to the United 
 jVtine Workers of America as a whole than to have the Operators 
 Association withdraw from the interstate movement; because, if 
 che Illinois operators were to withdraw it would necessarily 
 follow that other States would do likewise, and we should again 
 jreturn to the old method of strikes and lockouts which proved so 
 <jiisastrous to the welfare of our craftsmen in the years which have 
 ,>one by. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that the members 
 pf our local unions exercise every precaution in producing as 
 ] arge a percentage of marketable lump coal as is consistent with 
 good workmanship ; and if there are in your local union men who 
 jwill not observe the true spirit of trades unionism, it is the duty of 
 every loyal member of our organization to see that they are 
 properly disciplined. If trades unionism means anything, it 
 
 39 
 
means good workmanship in return for good wages; it means the 
 closest possible compliance with our agreements; and I sincerely 
 hope and trust that eyery member of the United Mine Workers 
 will do his full share to correct the abuses complained of in the 
 communication from Mr. Justi. I am, 
 
 Yours fraternally, 
 
 JOHN MITCHELL, 
 
 President U. M. W. of A. 
 
 40 
 
r 
 
 
 L. 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 12 06287032