Page images
PDF
EPUB

Judge LANGHAM. It may be. I can not understand why they do not come forward and press for a hearing:

Senator WAGNER. And press for a hearing?
Judge LANGHAM. Yes.

Senator WAGNER. Well, I will say quite frankly, Judge Langham, that I was informed, although the information may be unreliable, that they had been pressing for a hearing but were unable to get it.

Judge LANGHAM. Well, they have not been pressing for a hearing at all. You have certainly been misinformed,

Senator WHEELER. Do you say that the defendants have not been pressing for a hearing?

Judge LANGHAM. Oh, not at all. I have been willing to give them a hearing at any time, and have been all along. In fact, October or November, either month, would have been a splendid time for me to hear the case, because then I did not have jury work. Our jury work comes up in December and runs probably a couple of weeks in January. Then we have no jury work until March. And now we are right up to March and I can not hear that case, except about the third week of March. I should be very glad to hear it then if they would agree to have it set down for that time. That would suit me, and for the reason that our supreme court meets the third week in March, and I do not arrange for any jury trials during our supreme court because some of the attorneys are interested in cases that must be argued before the supreme court. January and February suited me, and-well, I do not want to speak for anybody else, but I am of the impression that they do not want a hearing, at least not very badly.

Senator WHEELER. Judge Langham, one of your injunctions restrained, did it not, the union from distributing any relief to the miners?

Judge LANGHAM. No; and that relief, if you will read the restraining order, is in furtherance of conspiracy to prevent the men from going to work if they wanted to go, and that is all there is to it. As far as contributions are concerned for the maintenance of these people, the best evidence of that as we know and as everybody knows lies in the fact that contributions are going in there daily, weekly, and monthly for their maintenance. But to employ men in furtherance, and that is the wording of it, of a conspiracy to prevent the men from going to work.

Senator WAGNER. Do you mean to say that you regard it as a conspiracy if a union that has called a strike goes to the relief of one of the members of the union who is on strike?

Judge LANGHAM. No, sir; I mean nothing of the kind.
Senator WAGNER. What is the conspiracy that you have in mind?

Judge LANGHAM. A conspiracy to employ people to go in there and interfere with the workmen who want to go to work.

Senator WHEELER. Do you mean after they have gone to work? Judge LANGHAM. Yes; or to prevent them from going if they

But as to the matter of giving relief, no, and the union, and individuals everywhere, can come into this town and get contributions for the relief of these people.

Senator WAGNER. I am trying to see if I can understand the principle of conspiracy in this case: Do you mean that if I go and give

92214-28PT 2—-16

want to go.

money to a miner in order that he may live during the time that he refuses to go back to work under the conditions laid down by the labor organizations, I mean until they are complied with?

Judge LANGHAM. Oh, no.
Senator WAGNER. Then what is it?

Judge LANGHAM. If there is a body of men contributing to send a man in there, or to send men in there and to pay them for going in and endeavoring to prevent other men from working. That is the only conspiracy that I can see in that, and that would be a mighty hard thing to prove I expect.

Senator WAGNER. What do you mean, to prevent them from working?

Judge LANGHAM. I mean just to prevent them from working, to prevent them from being employed, or going to work or accepting employment if they want to accept it. It is a hard problem to prove.

Senator WAGNER. I realize that.

Senator WHEELER. There is one inatter that I do want to ask you about, and I do not want you to think by asking you that I am reflecting at all upon you, but it has been told to us that you were interested in some of the mining properties themselves where these injunctions have been issued.

Judge LANGHAM. No; and I never was.
Senator WHEELER. I assumed that you certainly would not be.
Judge LANGHAM. I am not now and never was.
Senator WHEELER. Are you interested in any mines at all?

Judge LANGHAM. Yes; and I wanted to tell you about it and that I would like to sell out. I am interested in one common partnership in which there are four people. We are obligated for $30,000 in that property. I am interested to the extent of five-sixteenths of that amount. That is a common partnership. Then there is another common partnership in which I have a one-twelfth interest, and it is capitalized at $30,000. Neither of them is connected in any way with the companies that are under injunction.

Senator WHEELER. Have you had a strike on at those mines?

Judge LANGHAM. No; they just quit work. I mean that they shutdown. We shutdown probably between two and three years ago.

Senator WHEELER. So that they are not involved in this labor trouble at all?

Judge LANGHAM. Not a bit.

Senator WHEELER. Well, it should not be held against a man because he holds mining claims, because I have owned some myself that I would like to sell.

Judge LANGHAM. Fortunately I am not very heavily involved. But that is the extent of my interest in mining property. I have a

I a little stock in another one, but it is far removed; it is in this county but far removed from any labor troubles. And, by the way, that was shut down for a long period. I believe, however, that they are now working two or three days a week.

Senator WHEELER. Do you think the conditions around here are quite peaceful?

Judge LANGHAM. Very peaceful. Since the injunctions have been issued we have had no trouble.

Senator WHEELER. Those injunctions put the fear of God into the people, is that it?

Judge LANGHAM. They have been going along first-rate. By the way, have you men any mines out in your country?

Senator WHEELER. I live in a mining country, in the greatest copper-mining district in the world, and the richest hill in the world, notwithstanding New York. They take the money out of Montana to build in New York City. If it were not for Montana there would be no New York.

Senator WAGNER. Well, I will say to my colleague that we give due credit to Montana, but that there are many things we might say on that subject. Now, Judge Langham, to show that the courts do take contrary views, I just went through some litigation in New York in which the courts not only sustained, as they always have, the right of labor organizations to picket for the purpose of inducing those working in an industry in which there is a strike from joining the strike breakers, but the courts have also said that they would not enjoin the efforts of the union in the matter of inducing employees to violate a provision in their contract of employment that they would not join another union. We in New York have held that that is a rather progressive pronouncement.

Senator WHEELER. Where are the mines located, near the city?

Judge LANGHAM. The Rossiter mine, the way you people will have to go, is more than 30 miles from here, but you have a good road until within probably 2 or 3 miles.

Senator WHEELER. We want to go up there, and to see the church that you have made famous.

Judge LANGHAM. I should like to have you see that. " Senator WAGNER. It was very nice of you, Judge Langham, to come here and exchange views with us.

Judge LANGHAM. I was glad to come. I know that Senators are quite human. During the Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses I was down there in Washington, and used to look around a little over the Senate side occasionally.

Senator WHEELER. Some people think that we are too human.

Judge LANGHAM. Oh, I have seen Senators and Representatives before, and I realize their difficulties.

(Thereupon at 9 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned, and was later on called together again to hear further statements, as follows:)

THE MOORE HOTEL,

Indiana, Pa. The subcommittee was called together in the parlor of the Moore Hotel at 9.50 o'clock p. m.

Present: Senators Gooding (chairman of the subcommittee), Pine, Wheeler, and Wagner.

Present also: Mr. Philip Murray, international vice president of the United Mine Workers of America; Mr. Patrick J. Fagan, president of district No. 5, United Mine Workers of America; Mr. James Mark, president of district No. 2, United Mine Workers of America; and Mr. B. A. Sciotto, local attorney for the United Mine Workers of America.

Senator GOODING (chairman of the subcommittee). I believe there was a request that the subcommittee be called together to hear a further statement in regard to the injunction in this county.

Mr. MARK. Yes, sir.

Senator WAGNER. Mr. Sciotto, you are an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of Pennsylvania?

Mr. Sciotto. Yes, sir.

Senator WAGNER. And you represent the United Mine Workers of America?

Mr. SCIOTTO. I do.

Senator WAGNER. And you represented them in this injunction proceeding that we discussed at the meeting we held to-night with Judge Langham?

Mr. Sciotto. Yes, sir.

Senator WAGNER. There was a statement made that no effort had been made by the defendants in this injunction proceeding to secure a hearing after the ex parte injunction had been granted. Will you state to the committee what you did in behalf of the United Mine Workers of America in order to try to secure a hearing on the appli cation made for a permanent injunction?

Mr. Sciotto. Since August 30, 1927, there have been five preliminary injunctions granted against the United Mine Workers of America in Indiana County. The first injunction was granted August 30, and under the equity rules of the supreme court after a preliminary order is signed it is returnable within five days of that date. The court either hears ex parte testimony on the preliminary order, the signing of the order, or it is within his discretion to continue it--that is, to continue the hearing. The court, at the expiration of five days, in pursuance of motion made by counsel for plaintiff, continued the hearing as well as the injunction, and fixed a date suitable to the court and counsel on both sides, which was October 18, 1927.

At the time this matter was discussed--that is, the date for the hearing on the preliminary injunction ordered on August 30, 1927— John Ghizzoni, of the national executive board of the United Mine Workers of America, James Mack, attorney for the plaintiff, and myself, were in the Judge's chambers, and Mr. Ghizzoni most strenuously insisted upon an earlier date for the hearing.

Senator WAGNER. That is what I wanted to bring out. That is, August 30, 1927, was the time when the ex parte injunction was granted.

Mr. SCIOTTO. Yes, sir.

Senator WAGNER. And then the judge fixed October 18, 1927, for the hearing, a month and a half after the ex parte injunction was signed?

Mr. Sciotto. Yes, sir.

Senator WAGNER. Well, did you at that time ask for an earlier hearing?

Mr. SCIOTTO. We did.

Senator Wagner. And did the judge refuse to give you an earlier hearing?

Mr. Sciotto. Well, I would not say that the judge absolutely refused, but it seemed to have been inconvenient, and for this reason: The first Monday in September is grand jury week here, and the second Monday in September is criminal court, and the third Monday in September is civil court, so he was pretty well filled up as far as that was concerned. But after that the court was open and he was not in session and he could have fixed it for sometime then.

а

Senator WAGNER. How long would it have taken him to hear this application?

Mr. Sciotto. It would be according to what-

Senator WAGNER (interposing). You say he was pretty well filled up. In our practice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York if a thing of this kind came up the judge would say: Come in at 4 o'clock and I will hear you.

Mr. Sciotto. The hearing would take a day and a half or two days, because he would require all the testimony of the plaintiff and defendants to be heard at once, and his usual practice is not to limit it to the ex parte hearing, but he combines the preliminary hearing and the final hearing at one time, and that is what he desired to do.

At any rate the 18th day of October, 1927, was fixed, after much discussion between the judge and counsel for the plaintiff, John Ghizzoni and myself, and there was much pressure brought by our side to have an earlier date fixed, but the court made an excuse for every date that was suggested, and that was the most convenient for him at that time.

Senator WAGNER. Were you in a position then to ask for a modification of some of these very drastic provisions, like not permitting any picketing at all, or not permitting advertisements to be placed in the newspapers?

Mr. Sciotto. We were in a position under a recent Supreme Court decision to ask the court to modify the order regarding picketing. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has followed the Supreme Court of the United States in that the amount of pickets to be allowed is discretionary with the court. We felt that it would 'not do us any good to request a modification then, and then October 18 came along, and I want to be fair about it, that date was not suitable to me, because I had to be at Philadelphia in an appeal before the Supreme Court of the State, so I requested a continuance, and the earliest date that could be fixed that was suitable to the court and counsel on either side was November 29.

That was on the first injunction. On November 29, 1927, or shortly before that date, the chief counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Liveright, of Clearfield, called up associate counsel and said he could not attend to this matter at that time for some reason or other, and I think he had some case in Philadelphia, and requested a continuance. A motion was then presented to the court by them, and it was continued and no date was fixed.

Since that time I have discussed the matter of a hearing with Mr. Mack repeatedly

Senator WAGNER (interposing). Who is Mr. Mack?

Mr. Sciotto. He is associate counsel for the plaintiff in Indiana County. We did agree on one date, and I sent a copy of the agreement to him for execution, and he referred it to Mr. Liveright, and that date was not suitable for the reason that Mr. Liveright had to go to Washington on some case. I have discussed the matter of a hearing with him repeatedly. As to this matter of the defendants not desiring to have a hearing, it may have come up in this way: At the time that the hearing was continued on November 29, 1927, we agreed that the date should be fixed suitable to plaintiff and defendants and the court. We have not been able to get a date

« PreviousContinue »