Great Falls daily tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1895-1921, 1919-12-22
COAL OPERATORS
EXPLAIN STAND
AGAINST PALMER
Point Out Differences
Between Garfield Plan
and Attorney Generals S
Declare the Commission
Named by president
Has Too Much Power.

Named by Dresldent
Has Too Much Power.
Washington, Dec. 2i.-Coal operators
Of the United States through their exc
cutive committee have explained their
reasons for refusing to participate in
the governments plan for settling the
bltuminous coal strike. Renewing the
bound them to accept the governments
plan, the operators asserted that while
they were bound by and had agreed to
accept strike settlement proposals by
Or. Garfield, formec fuel administrator
the government proposals as accepted
by the miners, differ vitaIIy from those
OF the Garfield plan.
The insistence of the operators on the
stand left open the possibility, it was
held. that the commission named By
President Wilson and given by him pow
er to fix wages and prices of coal nee
essary to sustain wages, might be I'M
able to function.
will Not Stand Aioof.
The executive committee did not say.
however. that operators would stand
aloof from the commission in its in
vestigation and decision but left the
question open to be settled probably at
a meeting Tuesday in Cleveland. Ohio,
where a general session of the scale com
mittee of the central competitive field
and other operators generally has been
called.
The operators, in a formal statement
said:
In the light Of the statement. of At
torney General Palmer in which he says.
that it would be an amazing reputation
of their own statements IT the, operators
do not acquiesce in the plan which
their official representatives have agreed
to. in the settlement of the coal strike
the bituminous coal operators feel com
PEELED to state their attitude so It may
be clearly appreciated by the public.
Unaware of Agreement.
Attorney General Palmer in his
statement asserted that the operators
had agreed to the memorandum OF the
attorney general and John l.. Lewis. act
ing president of the United Mine Work
ers Of America. laying down the terms
Of agreement for settlement OF the coal
strike. The fact is that the operators
never learned of the existence of that
agreement until after it had been pre-
sented TO the miners at the Indianapolis
conference, December 10.
The operators did accept the proposal
Of the government presented through
DR.. Garfield. former fuel administrator.
and referred to in President Wilson's
letter of December 6. Under the terms
of this proposal the mine controversy
was to be settled on the basis of the
five principles announced by Dr. Gar
field The application Of ono Of these
principles determined the IA per cent
advance which was granted the miners.
The Garfield proposal further provided
for the establishment Of board with
advisory powers only.
Stand by Garfield.
1.-The operators still stand by the nc
ceptance of the Garfield proposal. The
presidents letter of December e. refer
red specifically to it and it seems to the
minds of the operators that it was the
intention of the president that the Gar
field proposal was to be used as the
basis of the settlement Of the wage con-
troversy.
''Thc operators never have been con
suited in regard to the memorandum
which was drawn by the attorney general
in conference with President Lewis and
Secretary Green of the miners organlza-
ton.
The memorandum goes far beyond
the Garfield proposal to which they as
scntcd
THE operators point out the following
radical differences between the Carried
proposal and the PalmerLewis memo
randum which was accepted at Indian
apolis.
Detail the Differences.
1.-THE Garfield proposal would have
established board with advisory powers
only. The PalmcrL Lewis memorandum
agreement would establish commission
not advisory in character. but with full
power definitely to fix coal prices, wages,
differentials and to determine the details
of working conditions in each district
covered by the memorandum.
''.-The question Of differcntiaIs and
internal working conditions in the many
bituminous coal fields affected by this
memorandum are so involved and com
plicated that complete review in order
to make an intelligent decision. would be
an interminable task. These matters are
Of vital Importance to the coal industry.
The dlfferentials themselves are not in
dispute.
'.3-Furthermore the findings IF
the commission contemplated by til"
Palmer-Lewis memorandum may be
time.
Other Important Differences.
There are other important differ
'HNts Del"t'll tJt DIvppsdl aIfa
the palmer-Lewis memorandum whIch
have not been made clear to the
operators up to this time. The operators
repeat that they have not agreed to the
Palmer-Lewis memorandum and that
they still stand upon their agreement to
accept the terms Of the Garfield
proposal. so that, in the final conclusion
of this matter, all interests will be
faithfully protected and served, and Il
- l. 4I,,As IS b.
worked out"