Norwich bulletin., 1919-12-22
Futher Eyp|ap On II
 By Goal Operators

Why They Failed to Partici-
 pate In Governments Plan
 For Settling Strike.
 Washington, Dec. 21.-Coal opera tors of the United States through their executive committee explained further tonight their reasons for re- fusing to participate in the govern ments plan for settling the bitumin-
 ous coal strike. Renewing the denial that previous agreements had bound them to accept the governments plan, The operators. asserted that while they were bound by and had agreed to ac- cept strike settlement proposals made hy Dr. Garfield, former fuel admins trator. the. government proposals as acecpted by the miners differ vitaLy from those of the Garfield plan.
 The insistence of, the operators left open tonight the possibility it was held, that the commission named
 Saturday by, President Wilson and given by. him power to fix wages. and prices of coal necessary to sustain | wages, might be unable to function. l The executive committee did not say, | however. that the operators would stand aloof from the commission in it's | investigations and decision, but left | tie question open, to be settled prob ably at a meeting Tuesday in Cleve- land, Ohio, where a general session of the scale committee central com petitive field and other operators gen. orally has been called.
 ] The operators in formal state
 qlent of Attorney General Palmer of
 yesterday. in which he says that 1t
 would be an amazing repudiation of 1 their own statements if the operators do not acduiesce in the plan which | their official representatives have re- peatedly agreed to in the settlement | 0 fthe coal strike. the bituminous coal
 opera tors feel impelled to re-state their attitude so that it may be clearly appreciated by the public.
 Attorney General Palmer, in his 1 statement of yesterday asserted that the operators had agreed to the mem
 orandum of the attorney general and
 John. L. Lewis. acting president of the United Mine Workers of America, laying down the terms of agreement
 for settlement of the coal strike. The fact is that the operators never learn
 ed of the existence of that agreement until after it had been presented to miners at the Indianapolis conference of December 1.
 'The operators did accept the pro
 posal of the government, presented through Dr. Garfield, former fuel ad-
 ministrator, and referred to in Pres ident Wilson's letter of December 9th
 Under the terms of this proposal the
 mine controversy was to be settled or : he basis of the five principles an- pouneed by Dr. Garfield. The appli-
 cation of one of these principles deter
 mined the IA per cent. advance whicI vas granted the miners. The Garfield proposal, further provided for the es-
 t;tbiisenlent of a board with advisory powers only.
 ,tr.The operators still stand by the ac. ceptance of the Garfield proposal. Int presidents letter of December 9th re | ferred specifically to. it and it seemed clear to the minds of the operator. that it was the intent of the presiden that the Garfield proposal was to b, used as the basis of settlement of tn, wage controversy.
 The operators meyer < have beel consulted in regard to the memoran s dunn which was drawn by the attor ney general in conference with Presi
 dent eLwis and Secretary Green o the miners organization.
 The memorandum goes far beyoni l the Garfield proposal to which the I assented.
 2 II ne operatorS polnI' out the IOllOW I iTs radical differences between tn t Garfield proposal and the Palmer : Lewis memorandum which was ac cepted at Indianapolis:
 . 1.-The Garfield proposal woul
 have established q board with advis e ory powers only. The Palmer Levi j. memorandum agreement would estab !, fish commission not advisory }, character but with full power def y ritely to, fix coal prices. wages. dif
 ferentials and to determine the de.aii
 Of orklng conditions within caC
 disuict covered by the memor III lt,m 2-The question of differentit.s .n 3 ir;siEel working conditions il til : Tany bituminous coal fields affccte " tl.;s memorandum are So nvol, :.
 ard c, implicated that a ccnIsei 'o review. in order to make an irtal.igar
 decision, would be an intarlninab
 ! task. These matters are of vital in U portance to the coal industry. I'll o dsferentials themselves are not in dis = pute.
 5 '2-Furthermore, the findings of u
 commission contemplated by the Pa ,i mer-Lewis memorandum may b ,. made retroactive without limitation y as to time.
 ' There are other important differ u ences between the Garfield propos 5, and the Palmer Lewis memoranda {. which have not been made clear to u a,oo operators up to this time. The opera " tors repeat that they have nev, y agreed to the Palmer-Lewis memoral ,t dunn and that they still stand upc y their agreement to accept the terms
 the Garfield proposal. They will uni ', with all the we'll thinking people ,s the country. so that, in the final COT i55 clusion of this matter, all interes ,1 will be faithfully protected and serve oi and a practicable solution of u problem worked out"
 ol Attorney General Palmer in " statement last night took exception 2. statements of A. M. Ogle. chairms le of the operators executive committe ' as made before the senate investiga = irC committee Friday. MT. Palm e' sad, newspaper reports credited Oe , with declaring that the attorne ve general had proposed a Surrender ?, This. Mir. Palmer said, was false ::u Mir. Ogle tonight responded to t III attorney generals remark by referri1 to the transcript of the commit
 session. That document, it was poin it's ed out, showed that the conversati, h. mentioned took place before any pr nd DO had been made by the governmel CT and that MT. Ogle's remarks we S- qualified.
 CT ATTEMPT TO ASSASSlNATE