What do you think of it, Mr. Mitchell? Would it be possible for an enemy to place you in a more unfavorable light than you are placed by your own official words and acts? You said all these things and did not mean them. You yielded one point and then another, after declaring you would not yield; finally when you had surrendered all your demands you declared that you would insist upon the old scale, and that you _would not recede_ from it. But you _did recede_ from it. You not only yielded everything you originally demanded but you agreed to a reduction. Not only this, but _you did all in your official power to enforce that reduction_. Are these facts or are they falsehoods, and if they are facts they accord perfectly with your capitalistic philosophy that “there is no necessary conflict between capital and labor.” It is only necessary for labor to have leaders with the civic federation label upon them and peacefully submit to slavery and degradation. What right has Mr. Mitchell to talk about the capitalist press as the “paid agents of capital”? Is it not the capitalist press that has poured out its fulsome eulogy upon Mr. Mitchell and heralded him as the greatest leader of labor in all history? It is my right, Mr. Mitchell, to arraign that press as the enemy of labor, but not your right, for you are a prime favorite with that press and the class who own that press, and when you denounce it you are guilty of ingratitude to the power that largely made you what you are. Is it a sure sign that I am trying to destroy the Miners’ Union because I am opposed to the reduction of the miners’ wages? Is this the best specimen of pure and simple labor union logic these gentlemen have to offer? What I am really trying to destroy is the mine owners’ influence in the Mine Workers’ Union. To that I plead guilty and there I draw the line. The operators know it and hate me accordingly. The mine workers, most of them, do not, as yet, know it and they share the hatred of their masters. But I can wait. It is true that the district convention of miners, held here, denounced me; it is also true that I said in reference to such action that “labor may generally be relied upon to crucify its friends.” This Mr. Mitchell is pleased to call a “whine.” These words were used to characterize the action of the men who said, “We have got to denounce Debs to set ourselves right with the operators.” They understood me and this is sufficient. And mark me, Mr. Mitchell, and don’t forget it, that body of miners, or their successors, will rescind those resolutions, and when they are finally directed where they properly belong you may have less occasion than you fancy you now have, even with the operators on your side, for self-congratulation. In the meantime I have no resentment but entire sympathy for those who denounced me. They acted for their masters and simply emphasized their own wage slavery.