The dispatch was sent out after the convention of miners at Indianapolis had turned down the ultimatum of the operators, and a strike seemed so imminent that the press uniformly declared that “only a miracle could prevent it.”
The prediction made in the dispatch came true to the letter. There was no strike, the reduction was accepted and the contract was made for two years.
The dispatch was undoubtedly sent out on the “best authority.” It was true prophecy. Now, the question is, Who is the “best authority” as to whether the miners will strike or not? Did the Post speak upon such authority? The outcome verifies it. Again, did the Post have such authority, or did it lie? The Post is friendly to Mr. Mitchell; will he say it lied? Will he have the Post name its “best authority”?
I inferred that the Post’s “best authority” was Mr. F. L. Robbins, leader of the mine owners, who lives in Pittsburg, where the Post is published, and I then asked, “Did Robbins, leader of the operators, have an understanding with Mitchell, president of the miners,” and I answered, “It must be admitted that it looks that way.”
This is the point that excites the wrath of the union officials. I now repeat it. To me it looks that way. I cannot avoid that conclusion.
The only error I made was in the date of adjournment. The convention adjourned March 7, not the 5th. Upon this point I stand corrected, but it is wholly immaterial. The convention refused the ultimatum of the operators on the 5th, the press reports saying “the vote was cast in the face of the opposition of President Mitchell and the other national officers.” Next day the Post sent out its prophetic dispatch. That is the point at issue, the action of the convention and the Post’s prophetic announcement next day. The date of adjournment does not alter the fact in the smallest degree.
“But,” says Mr. Mitchell, “Mr. Robbins had not returned to Pittsburg and therefore could not have given the Post the information—that disposes of the ‘misstatement.’” Not quite. The Post had a representative at Indianapolis and there are telegraph wires between there and Pittsburg.
When I said that in my opinion there was an “understanding” between Robbins and Mitchell I simply meant what I said. The men are on friendly personal terms. There is nothing wrong about that. When “they shook hands in the presence of the delegates and engaged in earnest conversation and were loudly applauded by the convention” there was no objection to that.
But the miners voted down the operators in spite of Mitchell’s protest. That is a fact, is it not?
And when the operators were voted down Mitchell and the national officers of the union appealed to the referendum.