The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-03-19
MINERS ASK NEW CONFERENCE
PROPOSE MEETING WITH An
THR4CITE OPERATORS.
Mitchell In Letter to Baer Asks That Fur.
Their Consideration Re Given TO Dif"
rcrcrces Before April Says the POSI-
tIon OF the Miners Was Misunderstood.

lNpIANApOIlS mdItu 10 coiNOhS
Mitchell tonight addressed a letter to
George F. Bner, acknowledging the re-
cont OF the refusal Of the anthracite opera
tors to comply with any of the miners
dcnands.
lie ga IS, however. that the questions
involved ara 50 weiGhty and the interests It
sake SO important that he hesitates ~
tale the reply of the operators as FINAL.
lie adds that a subcommittee of the
Shamokin scale committee would be glad to
confer ag ain with the anthracite operators,
ard expresses the hope that tho request
for further consultation will not be re-
fused.
Mitchell's letter is es follows;
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind, March IL, 1909.
'Nr. Genrgo r. Fder. cSn m a. PhGof'i phid,
ia.
-prAr SIR: Referring again to your
cor m u ication of March 10, with accom-
panying documents, and to our reply
thereto, | write to say that ] have sub
mittod to our committee the answer made
by Your committee to the proposition pre-
scented by us. 1t Is unnecessary TO state
that we were keenly disa ppointed to learn
that our demands were rejected in toto,
srd that our arguments IN favor OF them
had received so little consideration at your
hands that they we're practically ignored
In your reply to us.
we have again reviewed the scale pre-
scented for your consideration: we have
cnmp red it with the scale Of wages paid
for similar classes Of labor in other coal
producing States and districts and we are
satisfied beyond the peradventure of doubt
that the wage proposed are not in excess
Of indeed, that they re not 80 high as-the
wages paid in the bituminous mining dis
tricts of our country.
Judging from the language employed
in your answer to us, it is perfectly evident
that We failed to make clear or that you
failed 10 understand the real import of
the propositions submitted by us.
ave wish to assure you that we are not
u%nmindfhl of the great public interests
involved in this controversy as to our
future relations, neither are we unappre-
ciative of the splendid efforts made by
the anthracite coal strike commission to
. establish a relationship between US that
world insure a just and permanent peace,
but if you will refer to the award of that
commission you will find that the COM
mission itself was in doubt as to the per-
manency of its findings and expressed the
hope that at the expiration of the award
the relations OF operator and employee
would have so far improved as to make
IMPOSSIBLE such a condition as existed
throughout the country in consequence
of the strike in the anthracite region.
We had entertained the hope that our
adberence TO the letter and the spirit of
thr award and the absence of local or gen.
e!al strikes during the last three years
woull appeal more strongly to your
corfGerce and that we might reason
ab.y expect serious consideration of our
claim at this time,
When We met in joint conference at 1913
Irert' sreet, New York city, on the 18th
d." nC los" February, it was agreed that
wen the separate committees of seven
hal terminated their work they should
report TO the committee of the whole.
We understood this to mean that after we
hal submitted our demands and our reasons
therefor and you had prepared your reply
thereto the Joint committee would meet,
confer aad if possible reach an agree
ncnt.
But it. would seem, from reading your
reply, that all our propositions nave been
rejected and that your final decision has
been given. We trust that this conception
of your intention Is incorrect.
1T is our opinion that neither you nor
we can afford to break off negotiations in
this abrupt manner. SO far as we and the
interests we represent are concerned We
are willing TO accept a share of the re-
sponsibility this action entails, We he
lieve that further meetings should be held
and that we should strive earnestly and
o~onscientiously to reconcile our differences.
While it may be true that on the part of
the operators there has been no serious
cause for complaint during the last three
years, we wish to assure you that in ex-
pressing this opinion you do not reflect our
views. Not only has there been criticism
among the miners, but, what is Of more i'm
portancc, there exists much cause for
criticism and complaint. To such an eX-
tent is this true tina we feel it incumbent
upon us to say that we ann with any
degree Of contentnent or satisfaction con-
time 10 work under present conditions.
However, we repeat that the interests
involved a RI so vast that We are not willing
ia hrn1k on negotiations without first MAX
ing luTther EFFORTS 10 reconcile our differ
erce-. We therefore propose that further
conference or conferences be held between
row and the first If April.
IF this suggestion meets with your ap-
prevail We shall he pleased 10 arrange with
you a date upon which our joint committee
may recnnvenc.'
Between son ond GOO operators. repre-
senting the bituminous coal fields of Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, western Pennsylvania
and the Southwest, are here for the con-
ference. which opens in the morning.
Careful canvass Of the sentiment in
dics tes that they are unanimously, almost,
against granting any inorease in wages.
Francis l.. Robbins, who favors the
restoration Of the bituminous scale of
1903, seems to stand practically alone on
the proposition, for outside Of the repre-
sentatives Of the Pittsburg Coal Company,
Of which Robbins is president, all the
western Pennsylvania operators appear
to he in accord with the majority senti-
ment.
Speaking of the situa ton to-day, one
Of the largest Indiana operators said there
had been no change since the adjournment