First. The COAL given to men--presumably for the use of mankind in general--by Divine Providence. Second. The WORKMEN who dig the coal, haul it, screen it, etc. Third. The OWNER, who through money, or intelligence, or both, gets control of mines and works them for his profit. The mine owner resents the suggestion that he and his men are partners. Ought he to resent that suggestion? We think not. Miners without any capitalist could certainly get coal out of the ground. The capitalist without miners could not possibly get coal out of the ground. The labor is at least as important as the mine. ---- The capitalist who wishes to acquire a mine is willing to grant certain rights and conditions to him who has the MINE for sale. He treats with that person as with an equal. WHY WILL HE NOT GRANT RIGHTS AND EQUALITY TO THOSE WHO HAVE THE LABOR FOR SALE? If a hundred men own the mine, and elect a certain agent to represent them in the sale, the capitalist will willingly treat with that agent EVEN THOUGH HE BE NOT ONE OF THE ACTUAL MINE OWNERS. It becomes simply a question of the agent's AUTHORITY. Why does the capitalist haughtily refuse to treat with the accredited agent of the men who have the LABOR for sale, Is it not because he resents the workman's attempt at emancipation and equality? Is it not because the capitalist in his heart demands SUBMISSION from the man who works for a daily wage? Is it not because the powerful among us fail to admit that workers have passed from slavery to equality? A man owns vast mining properties. He lives in New York and in Newport. Comfortably, and at a distance, he runs and rules his mines. He is good-natured enough, kind-hearted. He means well. He does not see the corpses brought up from the fire-damp. He does not notice the hollow chests of young children with the pores of their skin and the pores of their lungs full of coal dust. This owner--who rules and draws his profits from Newport--has one bitter complaint against his striking men. He cannot forgive them BECAUSE THEY CALL IN A LABOR LEADER FROM CHICAGO TO SETTLE A LABOR DISPUTE IN PENNSYLVANIA. Imagining himself most condescending, he expresses willingness to treat personally and individually with his men. But he will not tolerate interference "with my business" on the part of the workmen's agent, whom he calls "an agitator from Chicago." WHY should he feel so badly about it? If the Pennsylvania workman is willing to let a NEWPORT man manage the capitalistic end, should not that Newport man allow a CHICAGO labor leader to manage the labor end? Is not one explanation the fact that the owner considers his workmen, in every possible respect, financially, morally, legally, ethically and eternally, his inferiors?