When Miners March

by William C. Blizzard

  Early Resolution Cited

  The esteem in which Sid Hatfield was held by the miners, as well as their anger at his murder, may be deduced from the following resolution. It was written almost a year before Sid was killed, and it refers to his trial for the Baldwin killings at Matewan. If the miners were in the mood indicated by this resolution in 1920, their feelings a year later, when they learned of Hatfield’s cold-blooded murder, may well be imagined:

  “Ward, W. Va., Sept. 13, 1920

  “Whereas, Justice is denied the workers in the courts of this great commonwealth, by and through a lot of red tape and expense, and,

  “Whereas, Our governor has always taken a stand against the workers and for the exploiting class, and the time has come when we as workers know there is no longer Justice to be had in the courts of this state, therefore be it.

  “Resolved. That we go on record as demanding that our District Officials prepare a referendum vote of our membership for the purpose of a general strike in this state as a protest to our legislators and governor against the passing of any laws to assist in railroading workers to the penitentiary or gallows at the behest of the capitalist-controlled governor, and be it further

  “Resolved. That Local Union No. 2681, in special meeting assembled, go on record as demanding for Sid Hatfield a fair and impartial trial, by his peers. And be it further

  “Resolved. That we pledge our moral and financial support, (and physical support if necessary); and we also ask all local unions in this state to take similar action, in order that Justice be not denied. And be it further

  “Resolved. That we send a copy of these resolutions to the governor, to our District Officials, to Sid Hatfield and to the press.

  “LOCAL UNION NO. 2681, U.M.W. of A.

  “E.G. Kay,

  “Rec. – Secty.

  “(Seal)”

  “E.G. Kay,

  “G.E. Tucker,

  “Will Gray”

  “Resolutions Committee.”

  1/15/1953 (Fortieth)

  In short, the miners, after the Aug. 1, 1921 killing of Sid Hatfield, were incensed past all alleviation by usual methods. Reports were circulated, later proved false, that UMW representatives A.D. Levender and Charley Wordman had also been killed in Mingo County. The miners began to reach for their rifles, as they could see no possibility of help from any official source.

  But an armed uprising is a serious matter and evidence points to the fact that a decision was made to appeal once more to Governor Morgan. There apparently was formed by the miners what was called a “Constitutional League,” headed by UMW officials and other interested citizens, with the avowed purpose of ending martial law in Mingo County and thus reinstituting the West Virginia and United States Constitutions. Word was passed to all local unions, including those in Mingo, that a great mass meeting was to be held on the capitol grounds at Charleston on Sunday, August 7. At this meeting the Governor would once more be asked to intercede on behalf of the miners.

  The response to the call for the mass meeting was impressive. A great crowd of miners thronged the capitol grounds, where a series of speakers reviewed the long list of grievances which had led to the present situation. Frank Keeney and Fred Mooney spoke, as did a number of lesser District 17 officials. Frank Ingham, the Negro who had been beaten and left for dead in McDowell County, retold his bloody story to an angry and attentive audience. Mother Jones added her own special brand of speaking to the swelling tide of accusing voices.

  Beautiful Sally Chambers, young widow of Ed Chambers, described how her husband and Sid Hatfield were murdered before her eyes just a week before, and how she had pluckily struck C.E. Lively with her umbrella. And many were the anonymous miners who rose to give their own stories of brutal coal company oppression.

  Thus regaled with tales of their own woes – and that they were very real and outlandish woes no reader can doubt – the anger of the miners reached fever pitch. They submitted to the Governor a series of resolutions wherein were reiterated the demands submitted to the coal operators of Mingo by C.F. Keeney on July 11, 1921. One might think, from the violent opposition of the operators, that the miners were asking for the immediate delivery of the coal industry into UMW hands.

  The Miners’ Demands

  For this reason the miners’ demands are set forth, just as they were presented on August 7, 1921. Resolved:

  “1 –That the coal operators involved agree that all employees return to work without discrimination against any employee belonging to a labor Union as provided in state law.

  “2 –That establishment of an eight-hour day as applied to all classes of labor in and around the mines as provided in contract in contractual relations between employer and employee.

  “3 –That miners get the semi-monthly payday.

  “4 –That the employees have the right to trade where he (sic) pleases and without molestation and duress.

  “5 –That employees shall have the right to elect checkweighmen, as provided in the mining laws; and that two thousand pounds shall constitute a ton as provided in the weights and measures law.

  “6 –Where the coal is not weighed over a standard scale, and the miner is paid by the car or by measure, the weight of each car shall be stamped thereon in plain numerals as provided by law.

  “7 –There shall be appointed a joint commission consisting of three representatives from each side for the purpose of adjusting wages of all workmen and miners working in and around the mines; to determine the mining rates, yardage, etc., and to endeavor to reach an equitable basis whereby parties in interest can meet any competition: to adopt rules and methods for the adjustment of any disputes which may arise between parties to this agreement.

  “To avoid any failure to agree, a Board of Arbitration consisting of three members shall be created, one to be chosen by the operators, one by the employees, and these two to select the third man who shall be a non-resident of the state.

  “Whenever the commission of six members shall fail to agree, the Board of Arbitration shall sit with the commission and decide the question in dispute which decision shall be final and binding on the contracting parties. The findings of the commission shall date from the time work is resumed, and shall continue until April 1, 1922.”

  These were the proposals of the UMW. They seem rather mild demands to be answered by jail sentences, starvation and gunmen. The coal operators were absolutely unwilling to talk with the miners on any terms whatever.

  The Operators’ Attitude

  Let us quote Z.T. Vinson, a coal company lawyer in 1921. He is speaking to the investigating subcommittee on Education and Labor:

  “It is understood, or rather it ought to be understood – and I think the Committee does understand it – what our position is, and it is absolutely unchangeable, that we will have no dealings whatever with the United Mine Workers of America. They are not in our employ; we have no connection with them and will not under any circumstances meet them in consultation about the difficulties down there. Now, with that absolute policy, I see no reason to go on and keep on insisting that we shall recognize their Union when we have so positively stated that under no circumstances will we do it, either through this honorable committee, through the president of the United States, or any other tribunal.”

  A workingman talking to a Federal investigation committee in this manner might have been thrown into jail for contempt for so long that he would never again see the light of day. But the coal operators got by with it. Some reasons why this was so will be developed later.

  The miners on the lawn of the statehouse presented their resolutions to Governor Morgan, asking that he request a meeting of operators and miners on the above terms, and if either refused to agree to call a special session of the Legislator to carry out campaign promises that the mine guard system would be abolished by law.

  Governor Morgan answered the miners by letter on Aug. 17, 1921. Though the letter was quite polite, and took up the miners’ demands
point by point, it nevertheless said quite plainly; “Go to Hell!” If this seems to put the matter bluntly, we shall illustrate.

  As regarded the request that strikers be not discriminated against, Morgan replied that he had no “authority to say to the coal operators of Mingo County or any other county, whom they shall employ in their coal mines….” This was quite true. The coal operators had seen to it that there was no legal coercion possible insofar as they were concerned, for they made the laws of West Virginia. And they also saw to it that Governor Morgan DID have the authority to invoke martial law in order that strikers might be beaten and starved into submission. The attempt to dictate to the coal companies, Morgan said, would be “unjustifiable usurpation of authority by the executive.”

  The same Governor wrote this who also wrote the proclamation under which men were arrested for reading the United Mine Worker’s Journal, and five Union men peaceably sitting together were thrown into jail for unlawful assembly!

  1/16/1953 (Forty-first)

  As to the eight-hour day, Morgan said that this was already in effect in Mingo County, so there was no point in discussing the matter. The obvious answer was that the men worked eight hours if the company felt like letting them work eight hours, and then only because of outside Union pressure. Governor Morgan very well knew this. He did not mention it.

  Governor Morgan solemnly stated that he had “been advised” that there was no company pressure in Mingo County for men to trade in the company stores, and that twice-a-month paydays were general rule. Governor Morgan does not name his advisers, but they were certainly not strikers.

  Checkweighmen, Morgan noted, were called for in state law, and a coal company should be prosecuted for violation of the law. He therefore urged that the matter be taken up with the courts of Mingo County. This was written with Morgan’s absolute knowledge that the Mingo Courts were in the hands of the coal operators, who are not noted for masochistic tendencies.

  As to the proposal that a joint commission of operators and miners be established in order to begin negotiations, and the appointment of a board of arbitration if this method failed, Governor Morgan pointed out that this would involve recognition of the UMW by the operators, and that the Mingo coal owners had said they would have nothing to do with this union.

  For Morgan, this ended the matter, for he pointed out that “the operator has a constitutional right to not recognize the Union if he so likes.” The Governor then went on to cite the infamous U.S. Supreme Court Decision in the Hitchman Case in 1917. This case originated in West Virginia, and was finally decided when the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the “yellow-dog contract.” In part, the decision was as follows: “An employer is acting within his lawful rights in making non-membership in a Union a condition of employment, and no explanation or justification for such a course is needed.”

  This anti-union decision was used as an authoritative legal reference for many years, until at last the passage in 1932 of the Norris-La Guardia Act alleviated its harsh ruling.

  Morgan’s Refusal Last Straw

  “The proposal of the UMW that a special session of the Legislature be called in order to implement Republican campaign promises to end the mineguard system is not an issue in the strike in Mingo County, as I am advised by the county official that its deputy sheriffs are paid out of the county treasury.”

  The reader will recall elsewhere in the history testimony of a Mingo County coal operator that the guards or deputies were really hired by the coal companies, with the understanding with the county court that it would pay the operators back when the county had the money.

  This was the flimsiest kind of evasion. The coal operators in Mingo were the county court and vice versa, so that in effect the operators would have been paying themselves back if they had really gone through with this announced scheme. There is no evidence that they ever did. On the contrary, there is real reason to believe that this was a story manufactured, as the old-time orators used to say, from the whole cloth. Morgan must have known this fact. His absolute refusal to act on any of the suggestions submitted by the miners on August 7 surely makes him in great measure responsible for the events which followed his complete exposure as a coal company governor.

  The events which followed, we repeat, are in part to be attributed to Morgan’s deafness to the plight of the miners of nonunion West Virginia. But he can not, of course, be held wholly responsible. The miners had throughout their history in West Virginia been victims of exploitation, cruelty, bad working conditions, miserable pay, and murderous treatment if they dared to protest. This they knew. And they were well aware of the role which many governors before Morgan had played in aiding the coal companies to dominate their lives. They had seen their employers grasp control of all governing bodies in West Virginia, from the statehouse to the county court.

  They had for many years appealed to their elected representatives for some sort of justice. And they had seen these same representatives give aid and comfort to their enemies after the most demagogic of pre-election promises. The miners of West Virginia, after these years of neglect and oppression, had lost faith in the ability or willingness of any governing body to aid them in their fight for a decent life. Governor Morgan’s refusal of aid was merely the final act which they could no longer bear. The weight of official indifference and hostility became suddenly too much to bear. In miners’ language, Morgan’s act was the “straw that broke the camel’s back.”

  Miners Reply With Action

  It seems quite apparent that the miners decided that they could rely only upon themselves. Morgan’s refusal of aid was dated August 17, 1921. By August 19 every Union miner in Kanawha, Boone and other counties had been informed of his reply. They grimly decided to reply to Morgan – in their own way. On August 20 the miners, armed with rifles, began to congregate at the mouth of Lens Creek, a point about 12 miles from Charleston. They arrived by the hundreds. It began to be evident that the miners traditional form of struggle in West Virginia, practiced since 1897, was about to be used again. This was the mass march of workers from coal camp to coal camp. But this time the atmosphere was grimmer.

  Grimmer even than in 1919, when some thousands of outraged miners had before assembled at Lens Creek, bearing rifles. For two years of bloody industrial warfare had gone by, the miners had been toughened by the conflict.

  Just why the coal diggers chose Lens Creek as a congregating spot will be obvious when a glance is taken at a map of the area, and the purpose of the assembled group is made clear. Lens Creek is the beginning of a sort of natural pass through the hills from Kanawha County into neighboring Boone, which was also strong UMW territory. Boone County borders Logan County, and through Logan it is a comparatively short march into Mingo. At this date a modern highway, U.S. Route No. 119, has been built, and is one of the more convenient methods of getting to the towns of Logan and Williamson when traveling from the Charleston area. There was no hard surfaced road in 1921, but this route was nevertheless a convenient and logical choice for men who wished to march first to Logan, and then “on to Mingo.”

  Chapter Eight: Call for Federal Troops

  1/17/1953 (Forty-second)

  The miners at the mouth of Lens Creek did not escape observation, nor, at this stage of the affair, did they make any efforts to conceal the unconcealable fact that huge numbers of men were camping at the base of the hills. It seems that they did, however, put out sentries in a roughly military manner in order to keep enemies from a close-range look. A Charleston Gazette reporter was supposed to have been informed that he was not welcome, which may well be believed, for neither the Gazette nor the Charleston Daily Mail had demonstrated sympathy for the miners’ cause.

  Someone, possibly another news hawk, had the bright idea of taking photographs from the air. Rifle shots encouraged the plane to return to Charleston. By the last week in August some 8,000 miners were at Lens Creek, most of them armed. We quote from the following letter, partly in order to show the a
ttitude of the Kanawha County authorities toward the miners and partly in order to demonstrate the seriousness of the situation:

  “Aug. 23, 1921.

  “HONERABLE E.F. MORGAN

  “GOVERNOR OF WEST VIRGINIA,

  “CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA.

  “Dear Sir:

  “For more than four days a large body of armed men have (sic) been congregated in Kanawha County, about 12 miles from Charleston, near the town of Marmet, using this place as a camp from which they have been threatening to march into and through other counties of the state.

  “This afternoon, an aeroplane, on a peaceful mission, flying over the camp, was fired into and the driver narrowly escaped death. Patrols have occupied the county roads running close to and through this camp and have held up private citizens and officers of the law and prevented their uninterrupted passage through the territory. This afternoon, this body of men started on their march up Lens Creek and actually proceeded several miles.

  “The situation has reached a point where the county authorities are unable to cope with it, and we feel compelled to request that you obtain, if possible, the aid of Federal Troops in order that law and order may be restored in this county.

  “We have wanted, and now desire, to reach no hasty conclusion, but in order that bloodshed may be avoided, we respectfully ask that you call to the aid of the people of this county (Miners were evidently not considered people by the authors of this letter. –Ed.) such forces as may be able to restore to them the right to go about their business without interruption.

  “There have not been for several years any labor strikes within the border of Kanawha County. No cause, so far as we have been able to ascertain, has been given this body to interrupt the citizens of the community in the peaceable and uninterrupted pursuit of attending to their own business….