commission were received, the President would do all in his power to induce the operators to accept its findings. This request was taken under advisement, but after most careful thought I concluded that, inasmuch as the operators had not agreed to accept the decision of a commission appointed in this manner and as the President had no power legally to enforce the award of a commission appointed by him, compliance with his request. would mean surrender of the cause for which the miners had so heroically fought. I was therefore reluctantly compelled to decline to advise the men to return to work, much as I sympathized with the efforts of the President in behalf of the people of the United States.

A few days after the conference with the President, the Governor of Pennsylvania ordered out the entire National Guard, which was directed to proceed to the coal fields. I was fully aware that the calling out of the troops would not have the effect desired by the operators. I knew that the presence of ten thousand or one hundred thousand soldiers would not result in the strikers returning to work, and the order, therefore, for the mustering of the entire National Guard did not shake my confidence in the ultimate victory of the men. In order to demonstrate the falsity of the claims made by the operators, that the strikers were deterred from resuming work through fear of violence, I directed that all men on strike--union and nonunion-should assemble in mass meetings and by vote determine whether or not they, or any of them, desired to return to work. On the very day on which 10,000 members of the Pennsylvania National Guard were being stationed in various parts of the coal fields, and when every man who desired to work was guaranteed military protection, 150,000 mine workers, without one dissenting voice, voted to continue the strike until victory was achieved or until they were ordered by the union to reënter the mines.

The operators had repeatedly promised that, if given military protection, they would be able to mine sufficient coal to meet the necessities of the public; but the arrival of the troops had no appreciable effect upon the output of the mines. As a matter of fact, some who had previously deserted from the ranks of the strikers or had been imported to take their

places, now refused to work. The failure of the operators thus became evident through the very measure which they had urged to insure success.

With coal at famine prices, with the press and the country clamoring for the resumption of mining, the operators finally realized the absolute necessity of surrender, and on the 13th of October, Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan called upon President Roosevelt and, in the name of the operators, offered to submit the matters in dispute to a commission consisting of five men to be appointed by the President and selected in the manner prescribed in the letter of submission.

At the time the offer of arbitration was made the mine workers had practically won the strike. The funds of the union were increasing at a rapid rate, and the amount of money on hand was greater than at any time in the previous history of the organization. The men had demonstrated conclusively that the presence of the troops had no effect and that they were in a position to continue the contest indefinitely. At the same time I felt that, as we had struggled for the principle of arbitration, we would not be justified in refusing to accept it because victory was within our hands.

The only objection that I had to the proposition submitted by Mr. Morgan was that it stipulated that the arbitrators be selected from certain avocations and certain classes of society. I therefore insisted that the President be free to exercise his own judgment in the selection of the commission and that, if the operators have a distinctive representative on the commission, a representative trade unionist be also appointed. The justice of this position was acknowledged, and a modification of the original proposition submitted by Mr. Morgan was accordingly secured. As soon as it was learned that the President would have full latitude, a delegate convention of the striking mine workers was called to meet in Wilkesbarre on October the 20th. After a full day's deliberation, it was unanimously decided that work should be resumed October the 23rd, and all questions in dispute were submitted to the arbitration of the commission appointed by the President of the United States.

CHAPTER XLV

THE AWARD OF THE ANTHRACITE COAL STRIKE

COMMISSION

The Miners Gain Arbitration. Organized Labor Represented on the Commission. The Work of the Commission. Testimony and Argument. Nature of the Investigation. Its Cost. Bulk of Testimony. Elaborate Report. Award, Recommendations, and Discussions. Temporary and Permanent Awards. Wages. Hours of Labor. Weighing of Coal. Check Weighmen and Docking Bosses. The Union Recognize. The Board of Conciliation. Its Recognition by the Operators. The Convention of June, 1903. The Redress of Grievances.

THE

HE coal strike, which had endured for five months as a result of the operators' refusal to arbitrate, was brought to a close about the middle of October by the submission of the questions at issue to arbitration. During the whole course of the strike, the miners had vainly struggled for the recognition of this principle, and the retreat of the operators from their untenable position, constituted a clear victory for the men and justified the declaration of the strike. As originally presented in the letter of the operators dated October 13, the offer of arbitration was entirely unacceptable. This defect, however, being remedied upon the demand of the miners, a return to work was immediately recommended by the District Executive Boards and unanimously approved in general convention on the 21st day of October. The suspension of mining, which for one hundred and sixtythree days had been general throughout the region, thus came to a close.

The appointment of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission will remain a landmark in the history of labor. By this act, the President of the United States asserted and upheld the paramount interest of the public in conflicts affecting injuriously the welfare of the community. In a certain sense, the appointment of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission was a signal proof of the power of public opinion, and a clear demonstration of the wise manner in which this power can be exercised at critical periods.

The sessions of the Commission were destined to become historical. Preliminary meetings were held on October 24th and 27th, 1902, and with few intermissions, the Commission sat in Scranton and Philadelphia from the 14th of November, 1902, until the 5th of February, 1903. This period was devoted to the taking of testimony and was succeeded by five days of argument from February 9th to February 13th inclusive. The sessions aroused the liveliest public interest, and thousands of people attended, while hundreds of others were unable to obtain entrance to these meetings. The attorneys presented the cases of both operators and mine workers with great skill and knowledge, and the legal contest between the representatives of the two sides evoked intense interest and general enthusiasm. The sessions were marked by a series of dramatic incidents, chief among which was the testimony of the little children, who worked in the silk mills and the coal breakers. In all, 558 witnesses were examined, of whom 240 were called by the Union, 153 by the attorneys for the non-union men, who were specially represented, 154 by the operators, and II by the Commission. The testimony was extremely bulky, amounting to over 10,000 legal cap pages, besides a vast number of statistical and other exhibits. The award, which was given on March 18th, 1903, was also lengthy, and, with the exhibits appended to it, made a document of some 120,000 words.

The findings of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission consist of a report and an award. The report is a more or less theoretical discussion of general principles, while the award consists of specific injunctions and specific recommendations bearing upon the anthracite struggle. I shall not discuss the report, which is, in my opinion and in that of the great body of unionists, a document prepared by fair-minded and intelligent men, but showing, upon the whole, a lack of appreciation of some of the fundamental principles of unionism and based upon premises which cannot be maintained.

The award, however, displays great practical wisdom and illustrates the tendency of wise men to surrender theoretical prejudices when they come into contact with a real and pressing problem. While it did not give the men all that they had demanded or were entitled to, still the award of