The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-02-10


 gardless of their aniliation or other
 wise with labor organizations.
 "A claim was asserted by yourself before the commission that a contract should be made by each of the em- ployers with the United Mine Workers of America covering wages, condition
 of employment and methods for the ad- justment of grievances but the com | mission overruled this claim and de- cided that such a contract was neither | necessary nor desirable. At the same
 time 1t suggested certain changes in lsthe organization and procedure of the United Mine Workers which seemed to e indispensable to the usefulness of
 the organization. These suggested
 changes have never been made. Questions Disposed Of. The oonciliatory board has dispos-
 ed of all questions which have been submitted to 1t save very few recent ~ tiers which are In process of adju- ycation. The practical result to the employees of existing conditions so far
 as this commission is concerned may
 be illustrated by tho facts during the year 1905 on production of 5,599,52S tons.
 "In December last that increase in
 wages by reason of the award of the commission was 16. 60 per cent. for the miners and 1T .7e per cent. for the
 
 the increase in labor cost was 30. 72 cents per ton, or an aggregate of S1,-
 720, ,g27,91. It may be added. that the to- tai increase in cost for 1905, over 1901.
 before the strike. was 77 cents per ton or $2,059,093,57, of which. as just said, labor received $1.72o, ,a97.s1. while the total increase in price was S7 .57 cents per ton or in the aggregate $2,- los, ,S92s9 so that the increase in bare cost of production absorbed the entire increase in price, save S44,79s42, or about three quarters of cent per ton.
 Tt is true that the award of the strike commission ceases to be abso- lutely controlling as to future condi- tions after March 31, 1906. but it's de- cislon after protected investigation must be regarded by any other tribu- nal and by all disinterested persons as conclusive in the absence of some new facts raising new questions. Similar ly to judicial action, adjudication IS final as to the facts involved ana thls
 Is no less the case because the affirm
 ative requirements of the Judgment
 have been performed. Indeed 1t Is scarcely conceivapie that any party to the award would seek to renew or retry the very SS rious controversies which were luiIy heard by the distinguished trlDuhds and were decided by 1t in pursuance or fine Presidents injunction to endeavor to establish the relations between tne | ennpIovers and the wage Workers III | the anthracite fields on Just anu nermanent basis and as Tar as possl- bIs to do away with any causes TOT the recurrence of such difficulties as 1 tbose which you have been called on
 w Fairness and Justice, ..I,,,ayv consideration, both of fair
 ness to .the public and Justice to the
 nsrties. dictates that the conclusions
 thns reached should be observed by all. ,,.,,, facta which -aisa new questions beyond the scope aS inc committee's award. they have not been brought to public attention. Tn case. however, there there be such
 matters. the natural course would be
 for inc members of the conciliation hoard, who represent the employees, to present them to the members who rep resent the employers and secure ac- tion without delay or friction. Indeed, if Is difficult to say what other course could be equally effective, as there Is no association of the employers and no other definite method of securing united action on their part in the gen eral method established by the strike commission.
 Tn case 1t should be necessary to resort to arbitration Tn reference to any matter not already covered by ar