The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-11-19

a car containing ten hundred pounds OF
refuse matter In 1t. He would be paid "A
cents for his twenty-eight hundred
pounds In other words the man who
does not load impurities Is penalized for
the man who does. In order for the COM
pany to obtain from all sources twent
t@o hundred and forty pound ton of mar
ketable coal, they are compelled under
this system to inflct a uniform penalty
on all of the men regardless Of whether
they load impurities or not Now the man
who loads impurities Is the one who ought
to be dockcd for IL. not the man who
does not.
@. How wilt you avoid that in the fu-
ture by this system of paying for ton
of 2240 pounds?
A. Now. / should say that It would be
just as easy to make 22i0 pounds the
basis of payment as 1t is to make ESQ
pounds the basis of payment Then de.
duct whatever docks are necessary to
protect the company against matter that
they cannot sell. The miners, OF course,
are not entitled to payment for matter
that cannot be marketed, but I think 1t
would be more satisfactory to all the
miners to have the ton 2.240 pounds. I
am free to say that the grievance may be
more apparent than real with them, but
1t is everlastingly there. They see 1t
every day but they are required to mine
n ton of coal of $500 pounds or 3.1O0
pounds, and they cannot understand why
they must give that much coal for a ton
when the companies are selling the coal
always on the basis of 2,240 pounds. IL
| may be that there is not great wrong
done the men and on the whole, taking
them altogether the man may receive
in the aggregate pay for all the coal they
load, but the fact remains that the man
who loads the impure coal is paid q part
of the money that ought to go to the
man who loads the pure coal
BY Mr.. Gowan:
Some System Necessary.
agree that no matter whether the coal 10
paid for by weight or not. some system
of allowance must be made to represent
the refuse which is loaded with the coal.
Under the present system, :,n arbitrary
figure of 200 or $500 pounds is estap-
lished. Under that condition, 1t is as
sumed that a ton of o.24O pounds of clean
coal will be produced, and that the rest
is refuse? A. That was originally true.
@. ] may say that is the theory now;
whether it is in point of fact true or not
do not ask you? A. Yes. sir =. Now,
IL you proceed to pay by the rate of 22AU
pounds you have still to make some al
lowance for impurities. have you not? y.
For the actual impurities. Q. For the
actual impurities? A. Yes. sir.
q. How are you going to ascertain
those impurities? \. OF course it is going
to be extremely difficult to work out q
scale as TO how much YOU are doing to
dock; as to the exact number Of pounds.
@. do not mean by the exact number OF
pounds Let me put it in this way You
cannot inspect every coal car. That is
impossible is it not? A. should not
say that it is impossible, but it is impos
sible. @. But it is impracticable? A. 1t
may be.
q. You have got to arrive, therefore, at
the average amount of impurities shipped
out during a given period in order to
determine what the average deduction
should be: A. AS far as it is possible to
inspect each car, let that be done. and
let the dock be made upon the person
who has loaded impurities. If at the end
of the month it is found that there has
not been as much coal mined. marketable
coal, including all the sizes that are
marketed. because the pea coal is as val
liable as the larger sizes. though the
miners are not paid for it at all--if at the
end of the month the company has paid
for more coal of all sizes than they have
sold or stocked, whatever they may do
with it, then some arrangement could be
made where the miners might have a Ger.
tain amount taken off of their pay to
compensate the company: and. on the
the month have been excessive. so that
the company has sold more coal during
the month that it has paid for. then they
ought to pay dividend to the miners.
That was the system in the Pennsylvania
company years ago. They paid a div-
dend at the end of the month or year, if
they sold more coal than they paid the
miners fW. q. How does that get you
away from this difficulty, that when you
come to average for the amount OF coai
which has been shipped and make either
deductions or pay dividends as you sug-
gest. the good miner is going to suffer by
reason of the shortcomings of the care
less or dishonest miner" A. 1t would
minimize that very much because l say
that the docks should be made as far as
possible during the day. during the
month. upon the men who had loaded
the most impurities and the men who
did not load them should not be docked
at all. So that. in the end of a month,
there might be a slight amount either
coming to the miners or to be paid by
them, but it would not affect each one
very much. 1t would minimize to the
very greatest degree the matter they
complain of.
An Interesting Colloquy.
1t was at this juncture the members
of the commission began their question
ing, alluded to above. The following in
terestng colloquy occurred between
Commissioner Watkins and Mr.. Mitch
ell:
BY Commissioner Watkins:
q. You asked Mr.. Mitchell a question
about this organization. The answer,
believe. was that it was the purpose Of
the organization to get every mine work.
cr in the country into the organzat tion.
That was It. was it not? a. l answered
that proposition afiirmatively. that tho
desire was to have every miner in the
United States member of our organiza-
ton. That is not its sole purpose how
ever.
@. Would 1t not be possible, then. for
you to tic up all the fuel interests of the
country? A. 1t would hardly be possible
with the proposition that is now sub
mitted to the commission. We make an
annual contract in tho soft coal fields
This commission has power to fix a con-
tract for longer period. That will put
MS in the position that if we had any such
intention we could not carry it out be-
cause there may be a contract here for
two or three years. or something like
that, The contract here might expire in
October. 1t always expires there In
April, so that there is hardly n possible
ity of what you have suggested. even if
We wanted to do it, If it We're our in
tentlOn, we WoUlu NOT permit a contract
TO be made that would remove our power
to do II.
g. But that Is a possible danger, is it
not, under unwise leadership? | do not
assume that YOU would he unwise enough
to do anything like that. but II is ono
of the things that we have to consider on
the commission. ] would like to have
your views on that subject. as to whether
it is not possible. Suppose, for instance,
that this commission gives decision that
Is satisfactory for any term of years,
limited to 2, 3, 4 or years, it is possible
then for your organization to force the
nneIa org In Ihn IiIuminaua raninn into