Mr. Mitchell virtually admits it and his explanation places him in the attitude of a general on a field of battle, first assuring his soldiers that their cause is just and that they must face the enemy like men, and then, on the eve of the fight, turning about and saying to the same soldiers who had so lustily cheered him: “I have been in conference with the general on the other side and he has convinced me that we are taking desperate chances of being whipped, and so I advise that you accept the terms of the enemy and retreat from the field without a fight.” As to the personal insinuations which are supposed to serve where argument fails, I regret as much as Mr. Mitchell seems to enjoy the meagerness of my service to the working class, but little as that service may amount to, I have the satisfaction of knowing that it is not of a quality to inspire the capitalist press to convince me that I am the greatest labor leader on earth. And little as I may claim, as compared with Mr. Mitchell, there is yet enough to include an almost fatal sunstroke, sustained on a public highway, the only place allowed me under a federal injunction, while rallying a body of coal miners to unite in the fight for an increase of wages and join the United Mine Workers of America. Mr. Mitchell claims that I accused him of dishonesty. I deny it. No such charge was made by me. I am concerned with acts and facts and not with motives. Mr. Mitchell’s honesty is not in question. Let that be conceded. Results remain the same. Now what are the questions in controversy? First—In my article of April 9 I incorporated a press dispatch sent out by the Pittsburg _Post_ on March 6, saying that it, the _Post_, had it upon the “best authority” that there would be no strike, that the miners would accept the reduction, and that a two years’ contract would be signed. 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.”