"The Coal Strike Conference"

Scanned from Public Opinion, October 9, 1902.

ACTING in accordance with the request of the president, the heads of the several anthracite coal companies and President Mitchell of the mine workers met in conference at on Friday with a view to ending the coal strike. President Roosevelt in earnest words pointed out the seriousness of the situation raised by the continuance of the strike and urged the operators and representatives of the miners to agree upon a basis for the resumption of work in the mines, basing his plea, not on legal grounds or official right, but upon the necessities and rights of the public and upon the duty and patriotism of the contestants.

In reply to the president the operators prepared individual statements, all of which take the ground that the obstacle in the way of the resumption of mining is the violence and intimidation practiced by the miners. The operators allege that they are making every effort to mine coal, that they have several thousand men at work and would have many more if their properties and the safety of their employees willing to work were protected by the state. The operators charge that the miners' union is an anarchistic association, organized and acting in defiance of federal and state laws, and they refuse to recognize it in any way, claiming that a compromise with the forces of disorder and anarchy would be a far greater evil than a temporary scarcity of fuel. The only concession offered by the operators was to reemploy the miners on the terms previously existing, disputes at individual collieries to be submitted for final determination to judges of the courts of common pleas.

On behalf of the miners, President Mitchell offered to call the strike off on condition that the issues culminating in it be referred to the president and a tribunal of his selection, the operators agreeing to embody the award of this tribunal in an agreement to run not less than one nor more than five years, and the wage scale thus agreed upon to date back to the day on which work was resumed. The operators rejected this proposal for the reasons stated, and upon the further ground that the miners were not competent to make and could not be depended upon to keep a contract.

For calling this fruitless conference President Roosevelt is unanimously praised by the press, public men, and the representatives of labor. Or as this aspect of the matter is summed up by the St. Louis Republic (Dem.): "Optimists will say that the moral effect of his interference will appear later; critics will say that he showed poor judgment in putting the presidential office where it was sure of failure. To be just, Mr. Roosevelt did the best he could, and the public will credit him with trying to remedy a lamentable situation."

The New York Tribune (Rep.) thinks that "there can be little doubt that Mr. Mitchell's offer will be generally regarded as fair, and the position of the operators condemned." The Herald (Ind.) says that "the attitude of the operators shows that they do not realize the duty they owe to the public." The Journal (Dem.) compares the attitude of the coal trust, "shaking its fist in the face of the president of the United States and defying him," with the "respectful, placable, and patriotic spirit" shown by Mr. Mitchell, and asks, "Who now can doubt where the full responsibility for the strike lies?" The World (Dem.) says that heavy as is the responsibility which rests upon the operators on account of the position they assumed "if the facts are as they state them, there is a much heavier responsibility resting on Governor Stone for permitting the mining of coal to be stopped by lawlessness, violence, and crime." The Evening Post (Ind.) agrees with the operators that "when the fundamental rights of property and labor are put at the mercy of torch and dynamite, it is better to freeze or to starve than to abdicate government at the behest of the rioters."

The Philadelphia North American (Ind.) characterizes Mr. Mitchell's plan as "perfectly fair," and it condemns the operators who, "instead of meeting the president in the spirit of his invitation, lectured him arrogantly on the subject of his duty and demanded that federal troops be sent to 'squelch' Mitchell and his 'outlaws.' The meeting was a lamentable failure, but it clears away all possible doubt as to where the impending public calamity lies." The Philadelphia Ledger and Record think that Mitchell would have done well to accept the operators' offer to submit local differences to the decision of the county judges. The Baltimore American (Rep.) condemned both operators and miners, declaring that the public can no longer have any patience with either party. The Boston Advertiser (Rep.) says that since the mine owners either can not or will not mine coal, temporary receivers should be appointed to operate the mines until the public's needs are satisfied. The Boston Post (Dem.) says that the operators have declared themselves to be public enemies, and "the indignant people will somehow find a way to deal with their enemies."

The Columbus Dispatch (Ind.) declares that as a result of the conference the operators' fight is lost, an that action by congress is now imperative. "The coal monopoly assumes its own right to exist and presumes to deny the right of the miners' union to exist," the Chicago Inter Ocean (Rep.) says. "It scouts the union of the miners, refuses to deal with it, and yet insists that the miners and the whole American people and their president shall deal with the coal monopoly as if its own legal status were absolutely unquestionable. What impudence! What nonsense!" The Cleveland Plain Dealer (Dem.) says that "now a way will be found to mine coal which will not be to the liking of those who regard themselves as the only persons interested in the coal industry. The welfare of the whole people is the supreme consideration, and that may demand the cutting of the anthracite knot, if it can not be untied by ordinary processes."

In the opinion of the Detroit Free Press (Ind. Dem.) "Mr. Baer and his associates are the anarchists of capital, as the reckless elements of the union are the anarchists of labor. But of the two the moral responsibility of the former is the greater." This division of responsibility is common among western papers, the St. Paul Pioneer Press (Rep.) saying the neither the miners nor the operators come before bar of public opinion with clean hands.