Mr. MUSSER. That is my understanding of it. That it is an out side congregation, with no connection with any denomination. But Mr. Welsh who is on the ground knows better than I do about that.

Senator WHEELER. Of course we will talk to the minister himself. Mr. MUSSER. All right.

Senator WHEELER. Have you a copy of the injunction order here? Mr. MUSSER. I do not have it with me. I have one at my house. Senator WHEELER. Have you one handy here in the office, Mr. Welsh?

Mr. WELSH. I do not believe that I have one here now.

Mr. MUSSER. Further than that, people are not restrained from congregating in that particular lot alone but on other lots. It so happens that those are the only lots and the only surface which we do not own and on which they could congregate and from which point they could see the operation down here by means of field glasses. It is across this ravine here, and they can see men going in and out, and by signing whatever it was, it was intended to intimidate our men.

Senator WHEELER. What particular objection would you have to their singing? What is your objection to that? And what was your operation as to the matter of the petition?

Mr. Musser. That was the practice used in different places in such cases.

Senator WHEELER. What is that?

Mr. MUSSER. That is the practice used in many other places. Senator WHEELER. What objection could there be to their singing? Mr. MUSSER. The objection is that if you have men working here, and if when they come in in the morning and go out in the evening, they hear these songs and see this crowd of a hostile nature, it affects them just as much as if you had a servant employed in your home, and every time that servant goes out of your home some one stands across the street 20 or 30 feet, or 100 or 150 feet, and sings or does anything else for the express purpose of annoying that servant, and when the servant returns the same thing happens. Those services were arranged, and I think you can understand that, to be at the time when the men went to work in the morning and came out in the evening. It was a thing that had never been known before to hold services at those particular hours. The intent was very clear and plain. Senator WHEELER. Mr. Musser, I assume that you have gone out and employed men to work in your mines, have you not?

Mr. MUSSER. Yes, sir.

Senator WHEELER. And this injunction prevented, as I understand it, and I may be wrong about it and if so I want you to correct me, this injunction prevented these other men from even going and speaking to your men, the men that were working here, and asking them to desist from working here.

Mr. MUSSER. Well, I am not clear just as to the language of the injunction in that respect. It was intended to prevent intimidation of our men who were working and were willing to continue working. Senator WHEELER. What do you mean by intimidation? Mr. MUSSER. By attempting to get those men to stop work. Senator WHEELER. Either by persuasive methods or otherwise? Mr MUSSER. By whatever methods they were using.

Senator WHEELER. And that was what you wanted to do by the injunction?

Mr. MUSSER. That was the intent of the injunction.

Senator WHEELER. That is, you intended to prevent anybody from talking to any man working here and saying to him, "Now, in my judgment you should not work in that mine".

Mr. MUSSER. No; I do not think the intent was quite as strong as that.

Senator WHEELER. Well, that is what I am trying to get from you. Mr. MUSSER. No.

Senator WAGNER. The injunction, however, does prevent that very thing, as I read it. It prevents any parading, any marching on any of the public highways leading to the mines, or any picketing, which would include even peaceful picketing, peaceful picketing as Senator Wheeler indicated by persuasion, or any attempt to win over a worker to their side of the controversy, I mean, to the side of the solicitor. Do you regard that as being justified or that the court is justified? Mr. MUSSER. As to peaceful picketing?

Senator WAGNER. In that form, of attempting to persuade?

Mr. MUSSER. Well, I do not profess to understand the legal phrase, and all that sort of thing, but I would say this

Senator WAGNER (interposing). Just offhand, as an American citizen, would not that be repugnant to your ideas of liberty and the right of free speech; I mean if the injunction went to that extent? I can understand how you would resist any efforts at intimidation, but I am speaking of this other way. Suppose I should approach one of these men, as a striker, and simply by way of persuasion and gument attempt to convince him that my side was better for labor than your side, and that I was standing for bettering labor conditions and for a higher scale of wages and a higher standard of living. Now, if I did no more than that, don't you think that would be within my rights, and ought to be within my rights, under the American idea of freedom of speech?

Mr. MUSSER. Personally, Senator, I would say that it was.

Senator WAGNER. But the injunction restrains that very thing. Mr. MUSSER. The injunction had this in mind, however, not as you have described it, and that would be a very peaceful and courteas persuasion; but that was not the type of picketing that led up to this. It was all set up in the injunction.

Senator WAGNER. And you have another provision which prevents any intimidation, about which no one complains, but there is still another provision of the injunction which restrains any violence, intimidation, menacing acts, or anything of that kind, and that is, of course, restrained. But in addition to that you restrain any attempt to address any of the strike breakers, and you in addition to that, as I read the injunction, prevent these same strikers from giving the public their version of the situation by means of newspaper advertisements. So that, as I view it, you stop them from talking to the strike breakers, and you stop them from publishing anything for the benefit of the public, and there is not much left after that. I do not think that perhaps you intended to have the injunction as broad as that yourself, did you?

92214-28-PT 2—17

Mr. MUSSER. Well, I think the issue was in this respect, that ther was no proceeding brought in court under any such head or for any such thing.

Senator WAGNER. That would simply say that they have t slavishly obey the injunction because it is the order of the court an must be obeyed. I am for that. I say that an injunction should b obeyed if it is promulgated by the court and so long as it stands.

Mr. MUSSER. I think there was more or less stuff published fol lowing that, and our suggestion was

Senator WAGNER (interposing). Do you think you have the righ to use a court mandate to cover more than your actual purpose, and that it ought to be made stronger so as clearly to carry out your intent?

Mr. MUSSER. Well, I will say this

Senator WAGNER (interposing). As I view this injunction I do not hesitate to say publicly that I think it is an absolute interference with the right of free speech.

it.

Mr. MUSSER. I do not believe it specifies that in that injunction. Senator WAGNER. Oh, my!

Senator WHEELER. Well, I will say that I have never seen one like

Senator WAGNER. I have been in a good deal of litigation, both as judge and attorney, and I can tell you very frankly that I never saw any injunction so comprehensive as is this one.

Senator GOODING. Nor so drastic.

Senator WHEELER. The thing about it is, and the point we are interested more particularly in, is that it breaks down respect for our courts, and I want to say that any time you break down respect for our courts among the people of this nation, then you are breeding anarchy.

Mr. MUSSER. Did you gentlemen examine the other injunctions issued in this county?

Senator WHEELER. I have not.

Senator WAGNER. There was one other injunction that prevented anybody in a case of eviction, where the law gives the right of appeal and correct me if I am mistaken-where the law gives the right to the tenant of the company that it is attempting to evict, to appeal by filing a bond, in order to insure payment during the pendency of the appeal, that restrained anyone except the rent-payer himself from filing a bond. And of course by indirection you know that that prevented an appeal.

Mr. MUSSER. I do not know of that.

Senator WAGNER. That you do not know about?

Mr. MUSSER. No, sir.

Senator WAGNER. That is in another county, I am informed here. Senator GOODING. What is the distance from the lots that you speak of connected with the church to the tramway or pathway along which the men go to work?

Mr. MUSSER. About 1,500 feet, Mr. Welsh, is it not?

Mr. WELSH. I think so.

Senator GOODING. Do you think the men going along there could hear them singing upon the hill?

Mr. MUSSER. Oh, yes. You can look out that window and see it.

Senator GOODING. He might hear a noise, but do you think he could hear the words of the songs?

Mr. WELSH. Oh, yes.

Senator GOODING. There is not much left for a man if you stop him from speaking, and stop him from talking and stop him from singing. They are about the limit of human effort to get a question before one's opponent in a matter of this kind. I say, then if he can not do that certainly there is not much left for a man to do. Senator WHEELER. There is not much liberty left to a man. Mr. WELSH. What about the men who are working? Are they to have no consideration? It certainly annoys them.

Senator WHEELER. So far as that is concerned every man in every line of industry is annoyed. No one is annoyed any more than we Senators are, but we do not go out and get an injunction and try to prevent people from annoying us.

Senator WAGNER. Yes; I heard some singing in the hotel last night that I would have been glad to see stopped.

Senator GOODING. Those hymns were out of the regular hymn books used in the church, were they not?

Mr. MUSSER. Personally I could not answer that question.
Senator GOODING. Could you answer it, Mr. Welsh?

Mr. WELSH. I believe they were, but modified sometimes to suit the situation.

Senator GOODING. And 1,500 feet away?

Mr. WELSH. Yes, sir.

Senator WHEELER. If the courts of this Nation are going to be used to enjoin religious proceedings, guaranteed to the people by the Constitution, then we have no legal Government. I will say that you are just breeding anarchy by that sort of thing.

Senator WAGNER. I might mention this while I am in this critical state of mind: Is it an unavoidable situation, having an injunction outstanding for a period of six months without giving those enjoined even a hearing as to whether the injunction should stand or not? Mr. MUSSER. I do not think there has been any delay.

Senator WAGNER. We have had the matter presented to us in this way: That Judge Langham said he would not hear it until both sides agreed upon a date. That makes it very simple upon the part of one side to delay a hearing by preventing an agreement.

Mr. MUSSER. I can assure you that our attorneys have made no attempt to delay any hearing, neither in the case of this injunction nor any other.

Senator GOODING. Mr. Musser, will you see to it that your attorneys make the same effort to get together to have this matter settled that we would expect in any matter of similar importance?

Mr. MUSSER. I will not only say that I will but I say that we have. Our attorney has been at liberty, in fact, a tentative date or dates were set, but on one occasion our court was in Pittsburgh. Senator WAGNER. We have other information.

Senator GOODING. We have been given other information here to the effect that delays have been brought about from time to time on some very flimsy excuse. You will please this subcommittee very much if you would say to the attorneys that your company is anxious to have this injunction passed upon and bring about a hearing at an early date.

Mr. MUSSER. As far as we are concerned, we have no reason for delay.

Senator WHEELER. I should now like to get at one other phase of the complaint made here, and that is this: What was the object of your reducing wages? I simply want to get your viewpoint of it.

Mr. MUSSER. Well, that is rather a long story, but I will try to make it brief. We were here representing, and I mean by that our corporation and a few others who were working up to the Jacksonville agreement, a property paying its labor anywhere from 21 per cent to a much higher percentage above the rates everybody else in our district were paying, as well as other contiguous districts. A few companies, those which carried out this agreement, represented 1 per cent of the output of central Pennsylvania. Of course, the commercial men could not go into the market, and we could not go to the railroad company, and sell coal in competition with the other 99 per cent, who were putting out coal at a cost for labor 21 per cent lower than we could produce ours.

Senator WHEELER. So far as your company was concerned you were not interested in reducing wages provided other companies had kept up their wages, is that it?

Mr. MUSSER. We were not, and that proposition was made to the officials of the United Mine Workers of America many times, that we were not interested in pounding down wages so long as we could stay in business in a competitive way.

Senator WHEELER. Would you have any objection to telling us who first of all-and I assume that you do not sell your coal to the railroad company through a selling agency?

Mr. MUSSER. Oh, no.

Senator WHEELER. You sell it direct?

Mr. MUSSER. We sell it direct.

Senator WHEELER. And that of course would eliminate some of the expense of the business.

Mr. MUSSER. We do not maintain a selling agency, which the commercial men do, or pay a broker to handle their output.

Senator WHEELER. And which some coal companies do, doubtless. Mr. MUSSER. Yes, sir.

Senator WHEELER. Can you tell me what it would cost you to produce coal at these mines? I assume that you have cost sheets that will show that?

Mr. MUSSER. We do not have the final cost sheets here. I would not object to telling your committee that in confidence, but I do not believe that I should be expected to make that sort of a statement here in the presence of all these newspaper men.

Senator GOODING. This all becomes public. We are going on with this hearing in Washington before the full committee, and we can not have any secrets. It will have to be told by your people in Washington.

Mr. MUSSER. But, if you will pardon me, I wish to say that I prefer to have it told in Washington, or else in my office confidentially. I will give that information to you, unless I am given instructions to the contrary. You understand that I am not the high executive officer of this company.

Senator WHEELER. Do you want to take it up with your superior?