331.88330973 
 W679s 
 
 f ^ 
 
 SYNOPTICAL 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 of the 
 
 Miners 9 Union 
 
 and its 
 
 Relation to the 
 
 Coal Industry 
 
 By 
 SAM WILLIS 
 
 )aily Courier Co., Taylorvilla, UL 
 
UNIVERSITY ^ r - 
 ILLINOIS LIB - 
 AT UR3/VNA-CH/ , a; ,,„ 
 ILL HIST. SUR-/UI 
 UNIVERSITY OF 
 ILLINOIS LIBRARY 
 AT UR^NA-CHAMPAIGN 
 ILL HIST. SURVEY 
 
SYNOPTICAL 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 of the 
 
 Miners 9 Union 
 
 and its 
 
 Relation to the 
 
 Coal Industry 
 
 By 
 
 SAM WILLIS 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 While it is true that many histories of the Miners' Union and its 
 association with the Coal Industry have been written by men fully 
 competent to deal with so important and far-reaching a subject, few if 
 any miners have read them for various reasons. These books were ex- 
 pensive and thus difficult to obtain. Many of those who were for- 
 tunate enough to have access to them were unable to thoroughly digest 
 their contents, because so much of it was written in anything but a 
 concise and understandable manner. For fear of not saying enough, 
 the authors erred in saying too much, and mine workers for the most 
 part, have neither the time nor patience to read and completely un- 
 derstand long drawn out and complex articles, no matter how valuable 
 they may be. 
 
 Therefore I concluded to write this synoptical history of the 
 Miners' Union and its association with the coal industry, a brief but 
 comprehensive account which I believe will prove readable, and which 
 will be readily understood by any worker, educated or otherwise. 
 
 I am sixty-four years of age, and I am still employed in the mine, 
 preparing and loading coal. Because of the closing of the mine in my 
 own home town, I am obliged to travel back and forth to my work 
 fifty-six miles each day. When the roads which consist partly of 
 earth, are impassable, the distance is increased to seventy four miles 
 daily. 
 
 In 1886 I joined the Miners' National Progressive Union, and re- 
 tained my membership therein until its dissolution. I have been a 
 member of the United Mine Workers of America since its inception. 
 So that this article is based on the firmest foundation of facts prov- 
 able by easily accessible records, in addition to personal experience 
 and observation. 
 
 This being the case, I am confident that the knowledge of each 
 reader will be .materially increased, and the spirit of optimism and 
 hope in general will be greatly enhanced by a careful study of this 
 brief history. 
 
 Notwithstanding my long and continuous membership in both 
 organizations I have never held or sought an office, except locally 
 and in minor capacities. However I have at all times been very active, 
 and never shirked my duty as a loyal Union man whenever the cause 
 of Unionism and the benefit of my fellow workers were at stake. 
 
 If this brief account, written during my spare time when the 
 mine was not working, attains the objects for which it was intended, 
 I will consider my time well spent, and my reward quite sufficient. 
 
 SAM WILLIS, 
 Member Local No. 1807, U. M. W. of A., Nokomis, 111. 
 
This synoptical history of the Miners' Trade Union is written with 
 the hope that it might give new hope and inspiration to the pessimist 
 who is ready to admit permanent defeat at the first dark turn of 
 events. 
 
 The struggle of the coal miners, like the struggle of society or 
 mankind, is not one of this generation, even in the United States, but 
 only another one of the necessary cycles to a better and broader un- 
 derstanding of the coal industry and its problems, on the part of the 
 miner as well as the operator. Each succeeding generation, its mode 
 of living; its politics; its education; its religion; its every day thought 
 and habit, become out of date and obsolete to its posterity, and trade 
 unions likewise are only part of the general economic thought of 
 the workers, that must and does find its way to the shelf of discard, 
 to be replaced by thought and methods that fit in with the new indus- 
 trial life of the moment. 
 
 In fading from the area of the coal fields of the nation, the United 
 Mine Workers of America, under the Lewis policy (as a union) after 
 having served its purpose, did only what every other union of the 
 miners did before its time, and they were many. All served for, and 
 accomplished a great good in paving a rough and difficult way, one 
 for the other. 
 
 As early as 1849, an organization of the anthracite miners, headed 
 by an Englishman named John Bates, was formed, when the produc- 
 tion of anthracite was barely over three million tons per year, and 
 when to have even entertained the thought of an "eight-hour day" 
 would have been equal to a peasant asking for a promotion to the house 
 of Lords. To have asked the operators to aid and cooperate with the 
 union by collecting the dues thru the check-off, would have been equal 
 to a threat to confiscate the industry. 
 
 John Bates' Union, considered by the operators a deathly foe, pry- 
 ing into the sacred property rights of the operators, was short lived, 
 but it had given birth to a new thought in the miners ranks of the 
 anthracite and bituminous coal fields, whose posterities will meet the 
 emergencies that the times demand. 
 
 In the later part of 1860, the question of "states rights" became 
 paramount, and involved us in a great struggle for national life. We 
 heard the sounds of preparation and the appeals of great orators, and 
 "United we stand, divided we fall" became the cry of the north. 
 
 The miners were not slow to take up this new slogan and in 1861 an 
 organization known as the American Miners' Association was organiz- 
 ed in Illinois. The total national production of bituminous coal at that 
 time being Six million, six hundred and eighty-eight thousand tons. 
 This organization gradually extended to the eastern states, enjoying 
 
 4 
 
the credit for the favorable wages enjoyed by the miners during the 
 Civil war. After the war, like after all wars, the reconstruction prob- 
 lem presented itself. Industry had to be reconverted to peace time 
 production, and the question of deflation to meet war debts and ob- 
 ligations, presented itself. Bituminous coal production by 1866 had 
 mounted, thru the stimulus of war demands, to Thirteen million, three 
 hundred and fifty thousand tons, or almost double since 1861, and 
 had to be dissipated in cut-throat competitive peace markets that had 
 not developed during the war as rapidly as the coal industry. 
 
 Like the United Mine Workers of America, the American Miners' 
 Association failed to recognize the necessity of wage readjustments, 
 and after the unsuccessful strike of 1867 and 1868, the organization 
 collapsed thru the force of internal strife and secession, brought about 
 by differences of opinion among the leaders as to the policy which 
 should be pursued, and which gave birth to the National Miners As- 
 sociation, which flourished in the Bituminous coal field. 
 
 In 1869 the Miners and Labors Benevolent Association was formed 
 in the anthracite field, under the leadership of John Siney, and lived 
 for six turbulent years of internal strife and dissension, due to the 
 agitation by many for one union for all coal fields, and collapsed with 
 the calling of a strike that closed down practically all of the mines in 
 the anthracite region in 1875. 
 
 In the meantime, the Miners' National Association, although born 
 out of internal strife and dissension, was encouraged by the success 
 of John Siney in the anthracite field, and in 1874 had enrolled a mem- 
 bership in the Bituminous fields of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsyl- 
 vania and West Virginia of over Twenty thousand members, when 
 the total bituminous production of all the states was only Twenty-seven 
 million tons, the Union's potential strength at that time being greater 
 according to tonnage, as compared with membership, than the potential 
 strength of the United Mine Workers of America in 1926, when the 
 Union's production was just a little more than fifty per cent of the 
 total bituminous coal produced. 
 
 With the collapse of John Siney's Union in the anthracite fields, 
 however, the Miners National Association was again shattered by in- 
 ternal dissension, and then the cry of the synthesis of all factions in 
 both the bituminous and anthracite fields, which gave birth to the 
 Knights of Labor. The Knights of Labor was the outgrowth of a gen- 
 eral dissatisfaction among all workers and was more or less patterned 
 after what is now known as "the one big union". Its spread both in 
 the anthracite and bituminous field, was rapid, and for a time exerted 
 considerable influence in improving the conditions of the miners. Those 
 thirty years of union agitation, however, had given birth to a new 
 thought, especially among the leaders, and there began to emerge the 
 
idea of collective bargaining by and thru the respective crafts and their 
 respective employers. 
 
 In 1885 the idea had gained such momentum that the Knights of 
 Labor's power for good in the mining fields had passed out, and again 
 the miners found themselves confronted with a conglomeration of con- 
 flicting ideas, out of which grew disintegration and secession, which 
 gave birth to the Miners National Progressive Union. 
 
 The Miners National Progressive Union, although few in member- 
 ship, had adopted definite policies along the lines of collective bargain- 
 ing with the operators, and thru it, joint confei'ences and trade agree- 
 ments with the operators were established in West Virginia, Western 
 Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, the first step in the direction 
 of collective bargaining by and between the operators and the miners. 
 Due, however, to the constant opposition of the Knights and Labor, and 
 internal dissension caused by those who were yet members of the 
 Knights of Labor, it was greatly hampered in its efforts and by 1889 
 it was apparent that its leadership would not be able to secure the 
 confidence of the membership, so necessary to successfully carry on 
 its work, and an agitation to the end of amalgamating all forces of 
 coal miners was swung into action. 
 
 In 1890 the Miners National Progressive Union and Assembly No. 
 135 of the Knights of Labor, which claimed jurisdiction over the 
 miners, amalgamated and gave birth to the United Mine Workers of 
 America, who took up the policies of the Miners National Progressive 
 Union, of negotiating contracts with the operators. This did not meet 
 with the approval of all factions, and the United Mine Workers of 
 America, like its predecessors, struggled along between life and death 
 for a number of years, held together only by the cooperation of many 
 coal operators who recognized the benefits of collective bargaining. 
 
 In the coal industry, like in all industries, new problems were pre- 
 senting themselves. Bituminous production had now, in 1890, amounted 
 to One Hundred and Eleven Million, three hundred and two thousand 
 tons-, and the competitive problem, while one supposedly of the op- 
 erators, rightfully had to be given consideration by the union, which 
 later established what is now only too well known as the Central Com- 
 petitive field, namely certain points in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and West- 
 ern Pennsylvania. Leaders of the miners, as well as the operators, 
 recognizing the necessity of cooperation, oftimes met to discuss the 
 many complicated problems that were presenting themselves to the 
 industry, and oftimes, and only too often, the rank and file who did 
 not understand the complicated competitive problems that were pre- 
 senting themselves, looked with suspicion upon those conferences. 
 
 For several years the United Mine Workers of America struggled 
 along and slowly but gradually added to its membership thru the 
 
bituminous and anthracite coal regions. In 1894 a general strike was 
 called in the bituminous field, but due to the lack of cooperation and 
 confidence in the leaders, by the rank and file, it might be said the 
 strike was a failure and only left food for criticism from the rank 
 and file, and in 1897 left the United Mine Workers of America with a 
 membership of less than Nine thousand members. 
 
 In 1898, John Mitchell, the peerless leader, was elected as President 
 of the United Mine Workers of America, and through his magnetic in- 
 fluence, the miners were at once inspired with hope and confidence, 
 and as though on wings, the United Mine Workers of America estab- 
 lished itself in all corners of the coal fields. A fair estimate of the 
 growth might be stated thus. In 1898, when Mitchell was elected 
 president, the United Mine Workers of America's representation to 
 the American Federation of Labor was one hundred and sixty votes. 
 In 1902, four years later, the representation to the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor was 1,854, a gain of 1,117 per cent. The membership 
 having increased, from less than 9.000 to over 200,000 in four years, 
 due to the fairness of its leaders, in dealing with the operators, and 
 by recognizing the competitive differentials necessary to permit the 
 low coal fields to enjoy the markets that by geography rightfully be- 
 long to them. From then on, the union continued under such policies 
 to make rapid gains, reaching its peak in 1918, under the leadership of 
 John P. White, when it could boast of a total membership bordering 
 close on to 650,000 members. 
 
 During the war, or rather from 1917 to 1918, notwithstanding that 
 the union had negotiated a contract in 1916, expiring April 1st, 1918, 
 the increasing cost of living necessitated voluntary negotiations, which 
 resulted in the shift hands wages being increased from $2.98 to $5.00 
 per day. This increase in wages, however, rwas not comtmensurate to 
 the increased cost of living, and in 1919, the day wages were increased 
 to $6.00 per day by Government award, along with a clause in the award 
 prohibiting the paying of bonuses, by the operators, that later be- 
 came the source of argument for a further $1.50 per day advance to 
 the shift hands, but no increase to the tonnage imen, whose earnings 
 were already far below the shift hands in the low coal fields. 
 
 At that time, little or no consideration was given by the miner to 
 the inevitable reconstruction and deflation period that would follow the 
 war, as a result of the deflated and demoralized monetary values in 
 Europe, which would reduce our exports and cripple industry. 
 
 Neither was consideration given to the fact, that the competitive 
 status of the bituminous coal industry had been revolutionized, aside 
 from being over developed in certain sections, (namely the Southern 
 Non-union fields for which there were no natural markets) by the 
 spread in the cost of production or competitive spread between the 
 
high and the low coal fields, as a result of the difference in the amount 
 of tons hoisted per man per day. The difference in different 
 coal fields amounting 1 in some instances to more than one hundred 
 per cent which likewise increased the cost of production, on the in- 
 creases applied to the shift hands, more than one hundred per cent in 
 some low coal fields, as against certain high coal fields, which made 
 it impossible for the low coal fields to compete, and thus closed down 
 some mines in every state in the Southwest, in fact in every unionized 
 state, leveled coal communities to the ground, drove business into 
 bankruptcy, while the Kansas miners lost more than half of their mem- 
 bership and the state's coal production fell from 7,500,000 in 1918 to 
 less than 2,500,000 in 1928. A loss in property to the operators, miners 
 and business of millions of dollars that can never be regained, and all 
 because of the stupid policy of No Backward Step. 
 
 Notwithstanding those factors, and notwithstanding that the pro- 
 gram of agi-icultural deflation was already in full swing, another $1.50 
 per day was added to the shift hands in and around the mines in Aug- 
 ust, 1920, while at the same time all other industries, including the 
 farming industry, were traveling down grade at a rapid rate. This 
 $1.50 added in many low fields, 17 cents per ton to the cost of pro- 
 duction, while in others it added less than 5 cents, further spreading 
 the competitive differentials more than 12 cents per ton. 
 
 As admitted by Mr. Lewis, the Non-union interest at once became 
 the backbone of coal production, mounting at least to 80 per cent in 
 1929, as against 20 per cent Union production, whereas in 1919, when 
 Mr. Lewis took office, the union fields were producing close on to 80 
 per cent of all coal mined. West Virginia and Kentucky's production 
 mounted from 121,548,000 in 1918 to 213,246,000 tons in 1926. 
 
 Having leveled our coal producing com|munities to the ground, and 
 having reduced the union's membership to a hopelessly debauched 
 handful, by maintaining a standard of wages, as stated by Mr. Lewis 
 in the following language on page 88 of (The Miners Fight for Am- 
 erican Standard) : — "The Union has no control over the opening of new 
 mines. It proposes, however, to maintain such standard of wages and 
 conditions as will force mines unable to produce coal on terms con- 
 sistent with human welfare and the interest of the consuming public 
 to close." 
 
 In view of the above by Mr. Lewis, there should remain no doubt as 
 to the intent and purpose of why, the last $1.50 a day was added to 
 shift hands in August, 1920. 
 
 In the high cost mines of Kansas, Missouri, Iowa and other places 
 the pit head production costs are $1.50 per ton greater than in West 
 Virginia or Kentucky, but their freight rate is $2.50 less than in 
 West Virginia or Kentucky. Is the closing of these high cost mines 
 
 8 , ' 
 
going to give the public cheaper coal, or is it merely going to swell 
 railroad revenues, while the dear public pays for its coal? Then we 
 must not forget that it is taking every dollar out of the home state 
 while business is being demoralized. 
 
 Mr. Lewis has a right to take the position, that those who advocate 
 a competitive wage scale that will give to the low coal fields their fair 
 share of the trade in their respective geographical location, would only 
 postpone mechanization of the industry, but on this point I would re- 
 fer Mr. Lewis to Secretary of Labor, Mr. Davis, whose position has 
 been made clear with reference to labor saving machines, that is now 
 occupying the time of the best statesmen in the Nation, by reason that 
 thousands of men and women are breaking into jails as a result of 
 having lost their employment by and through the installation of labor 
 saving machines. 
 
 That which is possibly uppermost in the mind of the average, mid- 
 dle age workman, at this time, is what is going to become of the ever- 
 increasing mass of unemployed, brought about by the ever-increasing 
 mass production, made possible by the ever increasing efficiency of 
 machinery. 
 
 "Machinery, more and better machinery, and still more machinery." 
 That phrase has become fixed in the vocabulary of society, who are 
 wholly unconscious of the accumulating store of discontent and unrest 
 that the machine is causing. Yet, it can truthfully be said, that in 
 general, there is not a sound argument against the installation of ma- 
 chinery, (if installed to do the greatest good.) The all pervading in- 
 fluence of machinery has arbitrarily imposed upon the wage earners 
 of the nation, more funeral gloom, bitter sadness, and crushing sorrows 
 than any other factor known, not barring the World War. This is 
 especially true in the low coal fields of the southwest where., aside from 
 strip mining, the veins are not adapted to mechanization and can only 
 result in the absolute destruction of our industry. 
 
 Here, then, is an evil that has caused a sea of complaints by the wage 
 earners, whose livelihood has been derived from that manual labor that 
 the machine, like a thief, in the stillness of night, has come to steal 
 away. With creeping sureness, the hand jobs are going, and leaving 
 in their wake, a mass of wage earners, who in frozen wonder, are 
 seized with that fear that seizes men when they see their employment 
 snatched away from them. 
 
 Deeply moved, as well as keenly stung, it is like a glacial pang of 
 pain, like the stab of a dagger of ice frozen from a poisoned well, that 
 the cruel, naked truth comes home to them, for now, more than ever 
 before, comes that corrobrated truth, that their volume of employment 
 is the barometer that diminishes their ever-increasing volume of wants, 
 and that without the employment, the fireside delights, are converted 
 
to hollow joys and ghastly loneliness that drives men to explosive 
 violence. 
 
 Wlhether it is, or is not admitted by the labor chieftains, there is 
 an increasing clamor and indignant denunciation of the labor saving 
 machine, on the part of labor, who consider the machine a fei'ocious foe 
 and a pestilence of greed, lust and cruelty, and baseless assumptions 
 and defective constructions will not answer the questions asked by 
 them with bearish rudeness. 
 
 It has been argued in a hopelessly, befogged, and excursive man- 
 ner, that while the machine is displacing men, new lines of endeavors 
 have been created to take up the displacements. In the face of au- 
 thentic indications, available from both the Department of Commerce 
 and the Department of Labor, such arguments are clownishly insen- 
 sible, and so visible is it to the naked eye, that such empty phrase- 
 ology and dissipated illusions, can cause only contempt by those who 
 ai - e walking the streets in search of employment, in competition with 
 machinery. 
 
 Again, it is argued that the wages of those who remain on the job 
 are oftimes increased, and in consequence of the higher living stand- 
 ard of those fortunate enough to remain on the job, new servicing in- 
 dustries, incidental to the increased comforts will open a way of relief, 
 but, here again, we must not overlook the concrete realities, that only 
 too often, this clattering, highly efficient soulless producer of volumes, 
 is operated by a splint of a girl, whose nimble fingers are as a part of 
 the machine, at a weekly wage of half what it cost for strong callous- 
 ed hands and muscles, who only too often has become the husband 
 dishwasher, while the wife has become the breadwinner at a reduced 
 yearly budget. 
 
 A peep into this labyrinth of economics is as if a door were sud- 
 denly left ajar into some world unknown before. And a glance at the 
 following figures will stagger the eyes, like the sight of water running 
 uphill. Since 1914 to 1927 manufacturing production increased seven- 
 ty percent, while manufacturing employment increased only fifteen 
 per cent, while manufactm-ing population increased eighteen per cent. 
 Farm production since 1900 to 1924 increased forty-eight per cent, 
 while farm employment decreased two per cent, while farm population 
 increased fourteen per cent, burning the candle on both ends as a re- 
 sult of the increased efficiency of machinery. 
 
 While it may be argued that progress cannot be halted, we chall- 
 enge the assertion that labor saving imiachinery installed in any in- 
 dustry where the volume of production already exceeds the demand of 
 the commodity is an asset to society, when we know, full well that the 
 result can terminate only in a reduced aggregate cost for the aggre- 
 gate production, which means more men unemployed, and fighting 
 
 10 
 
for a job on the labor market, while their families suffer all the mis- 
 eries of the unemployed, which is an ever present incentive for men 
 to work cheaper than the other fellow (not scab). Hunger knows no 
 bounds, and misery loves company. 
 
 Here, then, it would seem is a conglomeration of conflicting ten- 
 dencies, admitted evils, with no sound argument for its retardment, 
 and this, it can only be said is a cruel regretable truth, "So long as 
 the Machine is installed by the hands of greed, lust and power; so 
 long will labor saving machines be an evil to society." 
 
 The Machine then is an evil, or a Godsend, as society makes it. In 
 its creeping progress, and ascending supremacy, we can anticipate 
 the budding joys, abounding happiness, and fireside delights, it is 
 capable of bringing mankind, and convert deepening dust into danc- 
 ing sunlight with flippant ease; while, in the hands of intrenched 
 privilege and corporated selfishness its genei-ative influence and 
 fathomless powers may bring accumulating burdens, forlorn desola- 
 tion, crushing sorrows and haunting despair that will, with horrible 
 swiftness, transform insipid tameness and infantile simplicity into 
 eruptive violence with thirsting vengeance. 
 
 A creation of the competitive system, which is the mother of monop- 
 ly it has driven the local slaughter house, the municipal light plant, 
 the local merchant from his place of business to a clerkship in a chain 
 store, has brought untold hardships to the working men whose em- 
 ployment is seasonal, by refusing credit as do our local merchants, who 
 are a part of the town, and its activity; and now out in the by-ways, 
 like an eagle clutching its prey, it has fastened itself into the free- 
 born sons of the soil, only to reduce them once more to a feudal serf, 
 by increasing the percentage of mortgages more than 300 per cent in 
 the last twenty years. 
 
 Notwithstanding that since 1900 to 1924, farm production has in- 
 creased 48 per cent while faflm employment has decreased two per 
 cent, often do we hear the valueless assertions, with rambling loose- 
 ness, that the farmer is spending too much time in town, when he ought 
 to be in the field. Such mangled argument in the face of the solid 
 knowledge that the Congress has been strained to the breaking point 
 trying to legislate a solution to take care of the ever-increasing farm 
 surplus only exposed such upstart pretenders as damagogic inpostors. 
 
 THE UNION AIDS ITS OWN DOWNFALL. 
 
 There being nothing over stated in the above description, we have 
 a right to question the judgment of John L. Lewis, when he proceeds 
 to lend the influence of a labor union such as the U. M. W. of A. to 
 opulent and predatory interest, corporate greed, and malefactors of 
 great wealth for the purpose of mechanizing the mines in order that 
 
 11 
 
the aggregate cost may be reduced by the wholesale laying off of 
 miners who became, as stated before — "competitors in the labor world." 
 
 On page 111 of "The Miners Fight for American Standards," a booh 
 written by John L. Lewis, we read the following: 
 
 "It is obvious that only solvent corporations, sufficiently financed 
 can understand the improvements that the times demand. It is equally 
 plain that only properties enjoying the physical conditions which per- 
 mit the profitable employment of machinery can be successfully op- 
 erated." 
 
 Page 108: 
 
 "The policy of the United Mine Workers of America will inevitably 
 bring about the utmost employment of machinery of which coal min- 
 ing is physically capable. The policy of those who seek a disruption 
 of the existing wage structure would only postpone mechanization of 
 the industry and perpetuate obsolete methods." 
 
 Page 109: 
 
 "We have industries in this country, which use over $10,000 worth 
 of machinery per worker. Such equipment is a sound investment here. 
 In America, where machinery costs the most, it is scrapped most fre- 
 quently. Fair wages are not only a result of the high productivity of 
 machinery but relatively high wages costs are an ever present incen- 
 tive to the introduction of more and better machinery." 
 
 On page 114, Mr. Lewis, in justifying his aid, to the one factor more 
 responsible for the annihiliation of his Union, quotes and justifies the 
 following from the United States Coal Commission: 
 
 "Development of machinery to replace the irksome and solitary op- 
 eration of hand loading. In this lies the greatest opportunity not only 
 for lowering costs but for the improvement of mining conditions and 
 the reduction of accidents. The importance of this can be realized 
 when it is appreciated that with the introduction of machine loading 
 and the incidental developments accompanying its installation, the total 
 cost of coal at the mine in many cases may be reduced as shown by 
 actual operation results, by as much as 30<% of the. present costs. 
 Assuming s^uch reduction possible in only one-half of the bituminous 
 mines, the actual net saving in money value would amount to over 
 $200,000,000 per year." 
 
 Here, then, is the unimpeachable correctness of his demeanor, the 
 slicing from the aggregate wage of the men whom he represented 
 $200,000,000 a year, which can only reflect depression into the com- 
 munity's business volume. And, yet, this Chieftain of Labor has the 
 audacity to cry out, "No Backward Step." "Too many mines, too many 
 miners." 
 
 The "Too many mines, too many miners," sung in unison by all con- 
 
 12 
 
srected with the industry, and spoken with a uniformity of empTiasis 
 as commanding as a warrant of arrest for high treason by Mr. Lewis, 
 .must sound to one who will inform himself, like the idle talk of the 
 boy who is chasing the rainbow, in view of the undisputed fact that 
 250,000 too many miners in April is 250,000 not enough miners in Oc- 
 tober. The production of bituminous coal in October 1928 was 56% 
 greater than in April same year, the October production in 1929 was 
 40% greater than the April production. Thus we find too many mines 
 and not enough miners for other months in the same year. 125,000 
 miners laid off in April still leaves 125,000 too many miners to 
 effect the steady operation of the mines during the summer season; 
 while six months later, we find a demand for coal that necessitates 
 the employment of 250,000 more coal miners — let us emphasi2e Coal 
 miners. 
 
 Coal consumption unlike many other commodities is seasonal; and 
 to prattle about storing 150j000,000 tons of coal with all its shrink- 
 ages, deterioration, spontaneous combustion, housing- facilities, un- 
 loading and reloading, is to add millions to the full cost of the con- 
 sumer. This extra cost I am sure would be much greater, than the 
 burden carried now, in the form of peak load equipment of 50% pro- 
 duction for several months each year. The coal industry is such, that 
 at best, efficient management is compelled by circumstances for 
 periods to carry a two ton load on a one ton truck, then for another 
 period a wheel-barrow load on the same one ton truck; thus our 
 problem it seems deserves a glance in a different direction. Belgium, 
 France, and Germany have greatly solved the problem of irregularity 
 employment and production in the coal industry, by the use of coal 
 for purposes other than for warming our shins and making steam. In 
 the United States we do not yet seem to know that coal can be used 
 for any other purpose. 
 
 Notwithstanding these fundamental economic laws of the industry, 
 Mr. Lewis and his representatives before the various bodies, investiga- 
 ting the ills of bituminous coal, have testified in unison, with emphasis 
 as direct and unvarying as the course of a homing pigeon: 
 
 "Too many mines, too many miners, the high cost mine must be 
 closed and closed to stay." 
 
 Before the committee on Interstate Commerce pursuant to Senate 
 Res. 105, a resolution to investigate bituminous coal, Mr. Lewis testi- 
 fied as follows to a question by Senator Couzens found on page 382, 
 Part 1. 
 
 Senator Couzens — In reading your own statement and later refer- 
 ring to the report of the Department of Commerce, you used the langu- 
 age "stabilization of the industry". Will you define that? 
 
 MR. LEWIS — By stabilization, Senator, I mean to put some order 
 
 13 
 
into the badly disorganized and confused bituminous industry, by 
 eliminating, if possible, some of the mines that they are now endeavor- 
 ing to operate that constitute a drag upon the industry and constitute 
 an excessive charge upon the pub'ic in the price of the coal, by bring- 
 ing into the industry a greater opportunity for the men to work, to 
 increase the opportunity for employment, to eliminate some of the in- 
 termittency of employment. 
 
 From the above there can remain no longer any doubt as to Mr. 
 Lewis' interest. He proposes to remove the inteitmittency of employ- 
 ment in the better mines, as he terms them, at the cost of closing 
 down to stay closed, all of the low coal fields, and on Pages 369, 370, 
 371, 372, 373, and 374 of Part 1, he defines the mines that can produce 
 the nation's fuel requirements by citing the following tables: 
 
 Page 369: 
 
 To merely state that the bituminous coal industry is equipped to 
 produce an annual potential production millions of tons in excess of 
 consumption does not adequately tell the tragic story as it actually 
 exists. The following tables of coal production of the seven States of 
 Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia. Illinois, Ohio, and 
 Indiana for the years 1924-1926, showing production by the classes of 
 mines in operation, will serve to illustrate the overdevelopment: 
 
 Summary of Coal Production of following States, 1924: 
 
 Number of mines producing 100,000 tons 1,250 
 
 Total tonnage mines producing 100,000 tons 309,497,705 
 
 Total production for entire states , 408,413,639 
 
 The seven States listed above produce 84.4% of the total product- 
 ion of 483,687,000 tons in all States during 1924. 
 
 One thousand three hundred and thirteen mines, representing 
 the 5,693 reporting mines in the seven States, produced 76% of the 
 production of these States and 64% of the production of mines in all 
 States. Total number of bituminous mines reporting to the United 
 States Geological Survey in 1924 for all States— .7,586. 
 
 Page 371: 
 
 Number of mines producing 100,000 tons , 1,313 
 
 Total tonnage mines producing 100,000 tons _. 349,729,831 
 
 Total production for the seven States 443,345,001 
 
 The seven States listed above produced 85.2% of the total produc- 
 tion of 520,052,000 tons in all States during 1925. 
 
 One thousand three ft undred and thirteen mines, representing 
 25.2o/ of the 5,209 reporting mines in the 7 States, produced 78% of 
 the production of these States and 67.2% of the production of miles la 
 
 14 
 
all States in 1925. Total number of bituminous mines reporting to the 
 United States Geological Survey in 1925 for all states — 7.361. 
 
 Page 372: 
 
 Number of mines producing 100,000 tons 1,410 
 
 Total tonnage mines producing 100,000 tons 402.707,804 
 
 Total production for the seven States 494,034,243 
 
 The seven States listed above produced 85.7% of the total produc- 
 tion of 573,366,985 tons in all States during 1926. 
 
 One thousand four hundred and ten mines, representing 26.8% of 
 the 5,253 reporting mines in the seven States, produced 81.5% of the 
 production of these States, and 70.2 per cent of the total production of 
 mines in all states in 1926. Total number of bituminous mines report- 
 ing to United States Geological Survey in 1926 for all States, 7,177. 
 
 On page 90 of a book written by Mr. Lewis and known as "The 
 Miners Fight for American Standards', the sensibilities are shocked 
 by the following: 
 
 "Both Union and operators summoned what would naturally be 
 assumed to be the "wisdom to be found in their midst" in joint con- 
 ference in February, 1924, and agreed upon a plan to "correct fun- 
 damental evils." 
 
 This plan was not only agreed to by the contracting parties, but 
 was indorsed by representatives of the United States Government. 
 
 The Miners Union stands by the contract. It has suffered losses, 
 as was foreseen. It has never believed in welshing and will not welsh. 
 
 The demand for the repudiation of the plan, disguised as "modifica- 
 tion", BEFORE THE AGREEMENT HAS HAD A CHANCE TO 
 ACHIEVE WHAT IT WAS ADOPTED FOR, comes from two ele- 
 ments." 
 
 Going back to page 375, Part 1, testimony before the Senate Com- 
 mittee, Mr. Lewis does not imince words in stating the following: 
 
 "The progressive leaders of the industry, as well as Government 
 agencies, recognizing the value of the United Mine Workers and the 
 trade-union agreement as the only stabilizing force within the in- 
 dustry, sought to promote a long-time wage agreement which would 
 insure continuity of production and, under this arrangement, weed out 
 incompetent employers and eliminate needless surplus mines. 
 
 Following the strike of 1922, which was the result of an ill-advis- 
 ed attempt of bituminous coal management to destroy the mine work- 
 ers' union, certain Government agencies set to work to prevent anoth- 
 er strike. The bituminous industry continued uninterrupted operat- 
 
 15 
 
iotis by renewing the wage agreement in 1923 and again renewing the 
 wage pact in February, 1924, known as the Jacksonville wage agree- 
 ment, which was made for a period of three years*. The Jacksonville 
 wage pact had the active support of Government agencies anxious to* 
 promote peaee within the industry and eliminate excess mine and man: 
 power." 
 
 From the above there does" not seem to be any mistake as to the 
 intent of Mr. Lewis' policy. In fact, it might be asserted, even by a 
 legal brain, that it is bordering close onto a conspiracy. 
 
 Mr. Tetlow, acting president of West Virginia, testified before 
 the Committee on Interstate Commerce, Part 6, page 1489, as follows: 
 
 MR. TETLOW — It means, of course the destruction of every finan- 
 cially weak company. 
 
 SENATOR BRUCE— Well, would that be so bad after all, if the 
 weak ones did go to the wall — those not able to perform the office of 
 coal mining effectively? It would not be so bad if they did go to the 
 wall, would it ? There has to be a weeding out process at times under 
 economic stress. 
 
 MR. TETLOW — I think every uneconomic mine should disappear. 
 I think that every uneconomic or high-cost mine should disappear. 
 
 SENATOR BRUCE — Some of those now in the industry are just 
 mushrooms anyhow that sprang up during the war. 
 
 MR. TETLOW— Yes; and I think they should disappear. 
 
 From the above it would seem that Mr. Lewis and those appointed 
 by him are of one opinion in their determination to close the high-cost 
 mines, without any regard for the miners and operators of the low 
 cost coal f eld, who were the builders and fathers of the Union, but who 
 are now being led to slaughter by the instrument of their own creation, 
 the shame of it is beyond expression. 
 
 Other testimony given is that of Mr. Van Bittner, Chief represen- 
 tative of the United Mine Workers in:West Virginia, Part 5, Page 1142: 
 
 MR. BITTNER — We thought that it was an impossibility to secure 
 redress in the law courts by suits for damages, and the injunction had 
 been used very effectively against us. and we decided that if it worked 
 as well against the coal companies as it did against the United Mine 
 Workers of America, that we would be sitting fairly nice in northern 
 West Virginia. So a bill was prepared in which several individual 
 miners who were members of the United Mine Workers of America 
 
 1fi 
 
applied to the circuit court of Monongalia County, Judge I. Grant 
 LAZZELLE sitting. 
 
 SENATOR COUZENS— That is a State Court? 
 
 MR. BITTNER— That is a State Court. 
 
 (Mr. Bittner presented the bill for the record, and it is here print- 
 ed in full as follows:) 
 
 Passing up the bill and immaterial testimony, we come to Page 
 1147, Part 5: 
 
 MR. BITTNER — Now, we applied for this injunction to compel the 
 •coal companies, if they operated their mines at all, to operate under 
 the agreement. It was immediately denied. 
 
 SENATOR COUZENS — In denying it did the court hand down an 
 opinion? 
 
 MR. BITTNER — Yes, Sir; and our attorney has the opinion and will 
 be glad to file it, with the statement made by the judge. But we after- 
 wards learned that we had applied in the circuit court of that county, 
 for an injunction, to the judge who has a lease with the coal company, 
 of which lease I will file a certified copy with the committee attested 
 March 17, 1928. This judge and his family had a lease with this 
 company for a minimum Of $60,000 a year in royalties, and 20 cents a 
 ton on all over this amount. In other words, they were to take a 
 minimum of 300,000 tons annually, which would mean $60,000, and then 
 were to pay 20 cents a ton for all taken out over that. 
 
 SENATOR WHEELER— Do yon mean to say that this man sat 
 and heard this case under those circumstances? 
 
 MR. BITTNER— He certainly did. He sat and heard the case and 
 rendered an opinion. 
 
 The above needs no comment, other than to say, that one's judg- 
 ment is extremely liberal when We say that We think it was an act 
 of extreme negligence on the part of Mr. Van Bittner when he selected 
 West Virginia, recognized as a bitter foe to organized labor, when in 
 1926, a bill could have been presented in half a dozen states, where a 
 fair and impartial hearing and decision could have been expected. 
 
 But when Mir. Bittner testifies that the judge who heard the case 
 was receiving $60,000 per year in royalties from the coal company that 
 Mr. Bittner was asking him to prosecute, and in view of the lease 
 having been recorded in Deed Book No. 167, Page No. 178, on the 28th 
 day of May 1920, and a public record, I would say it is almost within 
 the mark to accuse him of criminal negligence. The reader can judge 
 
 17 
 
for himself, whether it was negligence, incompetency or conspiracy 
 to make a record against the union. 
 
 The above 'mentioned abuses are those which give origin to a crying 
 need for the removal from office of the late national officers. A move, 
 rendered necessary by the inability of the deposed officers to treat 
 with moral virtue and economic ethics commensurate for the loyalty 
 accorded them by the rank and file in the last several years, and no 
 matter how our eyes may be dazzled with show, our ears deceived by en- 
 chanting promises (that never mature) however prejudice may warp 
 our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of 
 nature and reason which has instilled in us the sense of self-preserva- 
 tion, will continue to cry out, WE ARE RIGHT. 
 
 Men of passive tempers, uninformed and indifferent, are prone to 
 assert, "Oh! come we will be friends," but examine the passions and 
 feeling of mankind, bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touch- 
 stone of nature, then tell me, what have we been for last seven years, 
 except an asylum of the oppressed and persecuted? Our members 
 and their families, ragged, hungry, and poverty stricken, have been 
 driven hither and thither from communities, once so fair and pros- 
 perous by the cruelty of a policy that is not a historical catalogue of 
 disastrous blunders, which has destroyed millions in mining proper- 
 ties that will never reopen, towns dismantled that will never rebuild, 
 while a joint relationship of thirty-five years patient efforts by and 
 beween miner and operator has been all but destroyed. If you say 
 you can still pass the violations over, then I can only say that in my 
 judgment you are not worthy of the name "Father" or "Husband." 
 
 Therefore the Springfield Convention was a declaration of indepen- 
 dence. That declaration of independence is the grandest, the bravest, 
 and the profoundest trade union achievement that was ever accomp- 
 lished by the representative of any union. Because no other union lead- 
 er ever betrayed the men as did Lewis and his pieces of silver hench- 
 men. The rescue, the deed of noble deeds, the embodiment of physical 
 and moral courage was never before necessary. 
 
 We say of physical and moral courage because it was a declaration 
 of war, against the most powerful enemy of labor in the world; the 
 poisonous hand of treason working from within. It was a declaration 
 of war, by a few men whose character the black plague of conspiracy 
 had already maliciously attacked preparatory to delivering their dis- 
 tricts and their members to the graveyard of poverty and non-unionism. 
 
 A declaration of war without preparedness; without money; with- 
 out anything except integrity and courage. 
 
 But with one blow, (The call for the Springfield Convention), they 
 struck down all the cruel, heartless barriers that autocracy, hyocrisy 
 
 18 
 
and conspiracy had built between man ana man. With one immortal 
 blow they struck down that infamous spirit ef caste that makes a god 
 almost a beast and a beast almost a god. With one bk>w they struck 
 down, wiped away, and in time, will utterly destroy all that has been 
 done by Lewis in ten years of hypocrisy and injustice. 
 
 They did imjore than that, they reconstructed a constitution that 
 restores to the rank and file the Old John Mitchell rights and privileg- 
 es. They gave back to each District its autonomy and returned to the 
 policy of making contracts that made the union great and mighty; 
 respected by the operators for its square dealing and loved by its mem- 
 bers for its persistent efforts to make the mining communities a better 
 and happier place to live in. They declared that every miner has a 
 right to live — not starve by closing down the mines. They declared 
 that every coal operator had the right to sell his coal in free markets 
 not protected for the non-union fields by wage dikes built by the union 
 with dollars that should have been spent to feed our hungry families 
 and promote our union mined coal. They replaced oppression with 
 freedom; pessimism with optimism; and skepticism with confidence. 
 They made it possible for men to again have confidence in man and re- 
 built a union that will be an asset to the miners and operators and not 
 a liability. They did more than all that — they restored free speech, 
 the gem of the human soul. They restored the right to transmit 
 thoughts by words which are the bodies of thoughts. Liberty gives 
 to their words wings and the whole intellectual heavens are filled with 
 thoughts. 
 
 They said: "In a labor organization every officer should give to 
 the membership, his reasons for the course he pursues." In our organ- 
 ization every member takes an obligation to take for himself and give 
 to every other memjber the right to the general ear and when we say 
 a man shall not talk, we say to others they shall not hear. 
 
 They had the institution of human slaves in the South which could 
 not be defended at the bar of public reason. It was an institution that 
 could not be defended in the high forum of human conscience. No man 
 could stand up and defend the right to rob the cradle; None can de- 
 fend the claim that lashes on a bare back are a legal-tender for labor 
 performed. Every man that lived upon the unpaid labor of another, 
 knew in his heart that he was a thief and for that reason he did not 
 want to debate it. Thereupon the institution of slavei - y said: "You 
 shall not speak, you shall not reason", and the lips of free thought 
 were manacled. 
 
 Mr. Lewis and his followers are now using the argument of the 
 slave owner. They dare not debate. God forbid that the rank and 
 file will much longer permit them to continue. 
 
 For that deliverance from evil, Harry Fishwick, his District Board, 
 
 19 
 
Sub-District Officers of Illinois and those attaching their names to the 
 Convention Call should and will be remembered by every decent trade 
 unionist long after they are gone. Their reward shall be their names 
 in the history of trade unionism. But songs of praise are not the 
 wishes of their souls and hearts. Nay they are above that. All they 
 ask is that the rank and file will study the facts, judge their acts, and 
 let their consciences be their guides. 
 
 SAM WILLIS. 
 
 20