Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-04-28
OPERATORS ANSWER
Reply to Mitchell Is a Denial
Of His Proposals For
Settlement
WANT SOMETHING Definite
WANT SOMETHING DEFINITE
Operators in Long Statement Claim
That the Miners Have Not Presented
Any Definite Plan for Settlement
OF the Strike ouestion-Text of the
Reply.

Of the Strike Question-Text of the
Reply.
New York, April 2S.-The anthracite
mine operators, thru their subcommit-
tee OF seven, at meeting here yes
terday drew up reply to the latest
proposition of the mine workers for an
adjustment of the existing difference
refuse to modify their position here
tofore announced. The operators call
upon the miners to renew for a period
of three years the award of the antlra-
cite strike commission or else to accept
the operators proposition that the
strike commission arbitrate the ques-
ton as to what changes. if any, shall
be made in the scale of wages fixed by
the commission in it's original award
The miners have heretofore declined
this Offer
Addressing President Mitchell and
others of the miners subcommittee,
the operators in their reply yesterday
said:
I'VE observe that you reject our
proposition of arbitration by the strike
committee. You speak of 1t as sug-
gestion that we first arbitrate to as
certain whether there is anything to
arbitrate, and then restrict within
narrow limits the scope of the inves-
tigation.'
This statement Of the proposition
is erroneous. Our offer was to sub
NIT to the members of the strike COM
mission the question whether any
changes in conditions have occurred
since the award of the commission re-
curing that the award should be SO
modified as to wages and adjustment
of complaints, and, If so, how 1t should
be changed
you will observe, therefore, that
your statement was decidedly inaccur-
ate. This proposition was in accord
ance with the view which we have
constantly urged, that the award OF the
commission should be deemed conclu-
sive as to any facts or issues within
it's scope, and that any further arbitra-
ton should be supplementary to that
award rather than retrial OF all such
facts and issues. 1t is clear that this
procedure would tend to dignity and
strengthen the process of arbitration
rather than, as you suggest bring II
into disrepute and ridicule. The latter
result would follow If arbitration should
never have been regarded as final, but
simply as a basis for further endless
controversy. We regret, therefore, that
Won should have rejected what would
clearly be the fair and logical course
regarding any arbitration in the pre-
misses.
Wants Something Definite.
.Your letter contains nothing defin-
lite with reference to the duration OF
the arrangements which you propose.
1t suggests that the same continue Ior
period to be mutually determined by
our Joint committees We have al
ready twice stated that in the inter-
ests of the industry and of the public,
any result now reached should cont1n-
ne for q period of three years. This
was the period fixed in the submission
to the strike commission for the pur-
nose of avoiding constant disturbance
in the industry and in the present case,
az we have already suggested it IS de-
sirable so that the political conditions
incident to the presidential campaign
may have as little influence as possi-
BILE on these business questions. IN
the absence Of any statement as to that
duration your propositions are, there
fore, incomplete.
1--WE observe that, as you suggest,
YOU have abandoned all the various
demands contained in your original
communication and that your present
differ entirely therefrom
and concern merely the matter OF
wages. These propositions seem to be
based upon the impression that wages
in the anthracite industry are unduly
low. Even before the advances which
were made by its award the strike
found to the contrary. 1t
was claimed that the earnings of the
anthracite workers were less than
those of the workers in the bituminous
fields. The commission found that
there has been a failure of testimony
to support this proposition
Think Wages High Enough.
eve do not find that the PROPOSE
tons we are considering, towit: That
the present rate Of wages of mine |
workers in the anthracite region is
lower than is paid in other occupations |
requiring equal skill and training, Is
Moreover 1T is establish
ed by figures contained in the report |
Of the secretary of internal affairs OF |
the state of Pennsylvania for 1904 that |
the average yearly earnings of all
classes of anthracite mine workers are |
much greater than those of the blum
nous employees in that state. mas
much as the two industries are so
largely competitive, the disparity of |
wages can not safely be further in |
creased"
The operators, after giving figures
in detail. say that to accept the slid
ing scale of wages proposed by the |
miners would mean an increase In the |
price of coal to the public of So cents
a ton. The present profit to the OPP
orators they say, is but 20 cents a ton.
Says Prices Must Rise
The letter continues:
But if we disregard the sliding scale
and assume that you simply mean to
add 10 cents per ton as the final in
crease in cost, this would result in in
creasing the wages Of our employees
s6. 1OO, 900 per annum; that is, 10 cents
per ton on 61.00O.000 of output. You
saw 1T will not result in imposing adj
ditional burdens upon the coal consum-
ing public How can this be done?