THE COAL DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 280, 22 August 1919, Page 3

THE COAL DISPUTE

GOVERNMENT'S REPLY TO LABOUR ALLIANCE OWNERS' OFFER SUFFICIENT NEED FOR MORE MINERS Tho Prime Minister (Right Hon. W. Jb. ilassev) has forwarded to tho ls : cw Zealand Labour Alliance the reply of Uibiuet to the deputation which interviewed Ministers last Saturday, asking ior Government intervention in tho coal rep'y' s as follows-.— Dear Sir,—Tho Cabinet has given careful consideration to the matters submitted to it by the deputation representiiiu tho National Alliance of Labour ou tno ltith instant.

In all matters of the kind it must be homo in mind that the Government lias no power to dictate to either party in ftn industrial dispute, nor lias it authority to intervene except by express invitation of tho parties. But the Government is necessarily concerned with tho interests of the sileut third party in all such disputes? namely, the general publie. and when the Government is asked to impartially review such a position as lias arisen with respect to the coal industry, it is bound to consider not only to what extent terms of settlement proposed by one party aro fair and just from the point of view of the other party directly interested, but also the effect upon tho general public of such a settlement. It is consequently necessary for the Government in a case like the present to endeavour lo ascertain as accurately as possible what is the actual rate of profit made by the employers under tho conditions as they now exist, because if such rate of profit does not ex. ceed a fair and just mercantile profit, it is obvious that any increase in the cost of production miist be cliarged to tho consumer. the general public; whereas if the profit under existing conditions exceeds a fair commercial profit, there exists a margin which may properly bo used to increase wages and cast of production without increase of cost to Iho consumer. With the object, and for the purpose, of ascertaining the rate-of profit made under existing conditions by the employers engaged in the coal industry the Government directed an inquiry under tlie Cost of Living Act bv tho .Board of Trade, associating with the Board of Trade, under the powers conferred by that Act, Mr. .Tames Ifight, Professor of Economics in Canterbury University College. That inquiry was conducted with great care and ability, and the report, dated May 20, 1919, has been printed and circulated. The Gov-' ernmcnt has no reason to doubt lite accuracy of that report, which shows that the, sverago dividend to shareholders in companies owning coal mines in New Zealand is less than 5 per cent., without making any provision for depreciation and sinkins- fund. And the Government has a further means of itself confirming the accuracy of those figures by reason of its control of the State coal mines.

Royal Commission Not, Possible, "It has been suggested by the miners that the result of the Board of Trade investigation is not satisfactory, and that different -results might have been arrived at bv an inquiry • held by a Jtoyal Commission. But the scope of matters which may be tho subject of a TCoyal Commission is very strictly limited by the Commissions of Inquiry Act. It is not lawful to issue a Koyal Commission to inquire into the private affairs of any nerson or company. For the purposes of Tho Cost of -Living Act alone, Parliament has granted special powers of inquiry into private concerns, but has required that any such inquiry mdst bo conducted by the Board of Trade or its delegates. ,

"It has therefore been apparent to the Government that in respect of the coal industry an increase in the cost of production cannot, fairly be borne by tho mine owners. The Government has therefore to-approach' its : consideration-'of wages and conditions from the point of Tiew that' prices to the consumer will bo increased by increase in the cost of production.

Awards May Be Altered. ... "The first point raised by the deputation was ail objection to a condition attached to an otter made by the mine owners, that condition being that tlio increasesin wages and contract prices should not apply in mines whers industrial agreements were in force until those industrial agreements had expired. Tlio view taken by tlio Government upon this point is in accord with that of . the miners and of the deputation; indeed, the Government introduced into Parliament, in the second session of 1918, section 18 of ,the AVar Legislation Act of that year, which for the first tinio empowered the Court of Arbitration to alter the provisions of an existing award during the term of such award, and required the Court to tako into its consideration alterations in conditions affecting the industry and the cost of living which had occurred since the date of the award.

"The Government, however, cannot there is any foundation for tho suggestion mads "by Mr. Hampton that t'lie object of the condition was to prevent the operations of the national organisation of coal ' miners. It is clear that the mine owners, though separate agreements exist in the case of the several mines, havo agreed to meet the members of: the national organisation, and have met' them in conference on two occasions. But it must bo recognised that there are practical difficulties 'in arriving at an agreement applicable in its details to every coal mine iii New Zealand, and that if a national agreement is capablo of expression so as to have full application to every mine, it must contain separate schedules expressing special conditions for each of tho several mines. Tho Government is of opinion that, before tho national organisation insists upon a national agreement, it should reduce to concrete fonn tho terms of 6uch an agreement, and demonstrate the methods by which provision can b'f made for the essential differences between the conditions and requirements of tho several mines.

Comparisons with Stato Mines. "AVith regard to your statement that 'the improved working conditions for which tlio miners wero asking wero practically all in operation already in the State mines, and that the State mines

were paying a minimum wage averaging lis. 74i1. per shift for tlio threo-mines, j tlie Government has been unable to find any evidenco that tile working conditions in the State mines are hotter thaii the average conditions existing in other mines. ■ It is true that minimum wages are fixed for certain parts of the Btttte mines. But the minimum wage is very Tiirely paid," because higlior wages are earned. The reference by you to tho average weekly earnings in the Point Elizabeth Mino for the six months ending September 30, 1918, does not provide a.basis of comparison with otherl mines, because the whole of tho coal / from the Point Elizabeth Jline is now produced from pillar working, and is . therefore easily gained. Tho deputation appeared to attach- some importance to t.'ie fact that "the price chargod to consumers for coal from tho State coal mines is less than that charged for coal from the privats mines. Tho deputation was apparently not aware that it is only with respcct to coal supplied for household purposes that tho difference in fa-

vour of tlio consumer applies. For all other purposes fcho cost is tho same for coal of tho samo quality, whether produced in the State coal mines or in (private mines. But tho Stflte Coal Department actually makes a loss in respect of household coafl, and therefore tho difference in the price orumot bo used as cm argument in consideration of the questions which havo arisen betneen tlio mine-owners and the workers, "With tho . contention of tho dopnktioit that hewers in filio mine shouJld not he required to do any trucking, tho Government is in sympathy, subject to tlie necessary limitation that exception to tho generalrule in that respect should I>2 mado in cav* where it is demonstrated that the crtiv cannot be extracted at a reasoniiblo'vjsost without some combination of hewing and trucking.

Pre-War Wage. "Mr. Hampton summarised the subjeota in respect of which the deputation doBited 'the consideration of Cabinet by

etab'n! the following threo questions:— 1. Are tho miners .entiKcd to a wage equal to pre-war conditions? 2. Dobs the employers' offer bring t'lio miners' wago np to that standard? und 3. If not, why not? "There is little difficulty in consideration of, and -reply to, the first question as tho answer hits already been given by the Government when lust year it introduced into l'aiuiament legislation which ena'bled tho miners to have their wages reviowed by Die Arbitration Court and raised where' tho Court'considers that tho increased cost of living, together with the conditions affecting tho industry, warranted the same. "But the second question, which put in other words is a question whether tho offer of increased wages and prices recently made by, the mine owners would, if accepted, be sufficient to compensate for the increase in the cost of living, above pre-war cost, is one which only arises because the miners do not consider that official figures on tho subject aro accurate. Since August, 1!)14, the following increases have been granted to tho minors:— Contract Wage Dale. worker. worker. »• Per cent. Per cent. 3fa.v, 10 10 June, 1917 75 10 Sept., 1518 74 10 251 30 The owners' offer of tho present month is a further increase of 10 per cent, to contract workers, and 15 per cent, to wage workers, and, if accepted, would raise the rat® of earnings in the case, of contract Workers to an average of 35 per cent, above pre-war rates, and in the case ol wage workers to <15 per cent, abovo rates. That incwa-so appears from official data to be sufficient to cover the increased cost of living, and thereto re to comply with tho. terms of Mr. Hampton's iirst question. Effect on Consumer.

i,. answer to the third question'is that there should be no reason to prevent tall effect being given tb the answer totho first question. And if tho matters w nicli Cabinet have to consider, at the invitation of tho deputation, can bo re-

duced into tho compass of Mr. Hampton s three questions, then the single matter in dispute appears io be whether in fact tho official data can be fully accepted by both parties to the original dispute; and, if not, whether both par. ties cannot agree upon some method of testing-the accuracy of the official data in llo ' 1 would bo satisfactory to both, llio Government itself has" the utmost confidence in the work and results of the Government Statistician, and in the completeness of the inquiry made by tiie Board of Trade. But tiie margin between the Bum arrived at by the addition of 35 per cent, and 45 per cent, respectively to pre-war earnings, and the sum arrived at by adding tho increasi, in tho cost of living to pre-war earnings is not largo, and fair argument, may ire open on the question'whether the margin extends beyond one side of tho Minor tho other. And for that reason the Government is of opinion that the quantum- of increase cannot in fairness lv definitely fixed by tlx; decision of the imno owners alone, or by the decision l. the miners alone, and should, if possible, be the subject of further consideration by both parties. But hero again comes in the question of the effect upon the consumer, the general public. Tho Government finds from reliable estimates that tho.-offer recently made by tin mine owners, anfl rejected by the niinert.. involves a total increase in tho cost of production of from .£125,000 to ,£150,0(!!J, and a consequent increase of price pex ton of coal to the consumer of from 2s. to 3s.

Cost of Miners' Demands, "If all tho demands mado by th<> miners were .conceded ' (including • hero the six points provisionally waived b\ the miners) the Government finds that the total increase ill cost of product n.would be approximately «c2,000,00ij (two millions), and the increase in price per ton to the consumer approximately iio. These figures illustrate and emphasise not merely the wide difference betv.\'the demands of the miners and the con. cessions of the mine owners but also the grave importance to the consumer. Tin, result is that while the -Government considers that an increase in price to the consumer of from 2s. to 3s. might bu justified by the conclusion arrived at n, the Government's Answer to Mr. Hampton's first question, and though it cannot decide that there may not bo elements outside official data whit.-, might be found to justify some slight addition to that increase of from 3s. to 3s. per ton, yet, firstly, the Government do not consider it probable that such elements, leaving oilicial dnt.i open to fair question, do exist, and, secondly, that even if it could be shown that a margin does exist which is not inily covered by the owners' recent offer, eucii margin could not be large enough to ba of practical importance. If the deputation desire the view of the Government upon the second question for the guidance of the parties, then the emphatic opinion of the .Government 'is that, firstly, the accuracy of the official data can be relied on, and, secondly, that, accepting those data, it appears clear that the increase oiiered by the owners would raise the miners' earnings to an amount at least equivalent :n purchasing power to pre-war earnings.

Need For More Miners. "There remains a question of the utmost importance, wluch does not tall within the scope of Mr. Hampton's matter, but which indirectly wins tno siiujeet of discussion by the deputation. There exists in !\eiv Zealand a num.ber of coal areas still unopened and still undeveloped. The number of men engaged in mining in Kew Zealand is insufficient to,, entirely man and equip tha mines which havo been already opened," and tho supply from existing mines has be:n proved to be. insufficient to meet the requirements of the Dominion. Unless tho number of miners is largely increased, production by means of the undeveloped mine is impossible. An increuso in tho number of miners cannot affect the rate of wages or earnings so long as all that are added can find immediate and full employment. None of the suggestions of liic deputation meets this grave difficulty, which is present and insistent by reason of the present shortago of coal supply which lias demonstrated that the number of men employfid cannot by their labour during the hours limited by existing'agreements produce enough to oven approximately meet the demand. That a further reduction of hours of work would further reduce the possiblo supply is fairly obvious; but that is not the point of the Government's present comment.

Blockinq Australian Miners. 1 "Tho miners, by their organisation, mado representations to- tlie miners of Australia, which prevented the Government proceeding with its efforts to pro., cure labour for the mines from Hint sourco. Tho Government is unable to agreo_that the statements of the New Zealand Labour organisation to the Australian organisation with respect to conditions of uiiairis; work in ftew Zealand wero justified. Tho condition that any addition to tlio numher of miners must be of unionists is admitted, hut there must be addition to tho number of miners to enable the new development to which 'reference has been made. Even the State is unable to enter upon tho enterprise of opening new mines and providing necessary facilities for that purpose, because it could only obtain labour necessary for that purpose by reducine~Tlio production of existing mines, The Government invite the'deputation to state frankly' 'lie position nf Ita organisation upon this subject, and to meet tho Government iairiy in..some arrangement to insure such addition to tho number of minors engaged in the coal industry as will enable tlie Dominion in the near future to rely upon its own supplies of coal for tho purposes _of its crowine industries. —Yours faithfully, (Signed) "W. V. MASSEY, "Prime Minister."

STATEMENT BY THE MINERS A REPLY TO MR. PRYOR The following statement in regard to tho coal mines dispute was supplied yesterday by Mr. .1. Arlmckle, secretary of the New Zealand Miners' 'Federation

"At last Mr. W. Pryor has broken silence. For iivo days, at tho conference between tlie coal owners' representatives and the representatives of the Miners' Federation, he was either too unpractical to speak with confidence about tho coai-

mitting conditions, or did not think it ot sufficient importance to discuss such trivialities as a miners' national agreement, the minimum wage, or, indeed, anything connected with the miners* dispute. _ However, he has now become a coal-mining export, and is prepared to advise the Prime Minister on anything and everything connected with , the coal' industry. His statements are indeed too amateurish lo be taken seriously; in fact, it seems that the respected secretary of tho Employers' Federation is making a last gallant sdand to defend the very poor ease put forward by his employers, the coal owners. " 'It was shown at the conference,' says Mr. Pryor, 'that it was impracticable to frame conditions for a national agreement by the representatives sittiii" in Wellington; it would take from three to six months to do so.' In the first olaco we ask who proved that a national agreement was impracticable? Certainly not the coal owners or their representatives; they only asserted it. There is somewhat ot a difference between proving a statement and asserting it. The miners' representatives (who are practical miners) proved very clearly that the demands contained in the proposed national agreement can be applied to all miners. In fact, Mr. Pryor admits that it was a question of the time it would take rather than its impracticability, and therefore lie cannot expect the miners, the Prime Minister, and above all, the public, to take him seriously.

"We will take, for example, our demands 1 to 12, pertaining to truckers, rope road workers, tippers, lamp trimmers, carpenters, blacksmiths, shift men, yardmen, and other outside workers. These aro all day-wages men; therefore, everyone must agree that it is worth us much per day to truck coal, sharpen picks and drills, repair trucks, cut and fit timber, pick stone from coal, the same in one part of New Zealand as in another. Coal is black, we admit, but that is no reason why the money paid should be bljicker in one part of Now Zealand than another.

"We are indeed pleased that Mr. Pryor has made the statement public that some of the members of the Miners' Federation would bo debarred from participating in tho increase in wages offered by the employers. Wo would be still more pleased if Mr. Pryor kept to facts on this question. For instance, he states that it would only alfect a small number of miners. As a matter of fact, Mr. Pryor stated at the conference that tho agreement would not conic into operation in any of the mines which had a clause stating that the agreement terminated ais months after the declaration of peace. If the federation agreed to the mine owners' proposals they would only be subscribing to a long-standing abuse which the coal companies have inflicted on the small unions for years past. "The mine owners have always lagged behind in granting the smnll unions reasonable working conditions. There lias been no increase in wages since the industrial agreement of last September was arrived at. These men have only received the 25 per cent, and 30 per cent, on the pre-war rates. What claim, then, do the coal owners put forward other than that of an attack on the national organisation of mine workers? The best method of attack is undoubtedly that of compelling the Miners' Federation to accept an agreement which fully one-third of its members were not included under. It would mean that nearly W per cent, of the miners would not receive any increase in ivnges or improvements in working conditions. If the mine owners' suggestion were accepted it would certainly have the, effect of causing internal disruption in the Miners' Federation. The employers may try to camouflage their attitude towards a national agreement as much as they desire, but their real objective is. an attack on the national' organisation of miners. "We feel quite sure the public will appreciate Mr. Pryor's 'clear explanation' on this matter, especially when they already know how far it is safo to trust tiie coal owners to look after the interests of the wage workers and tho general public. "itegavding llio tlnoo issues put lovvraru by Mr. Hampton, and the reply thereto by Mr. Pryor on behalf of the coal owners, why has Mr. Pryor made an ex parte statement on the Board of Trade report on the cost of living? Why does Mr. Pryor preach so much about harmony between the" employers and the workers, and- av, die same .tinitj lift-a few lines from a paragraph in the Beard of Trade report to bolster up his case, and conveniently omit-to quote the whole paragraph? Why all this 'lip service'.to better harmony, etc., and at the same time attempt to put the miners in a false position in the tyes of the public? AYhy did not the coal owners' secretary state fully the Board of Trade report, page 70?—

The percentage of Hie lolal outlay which is represented "by food, lias risen, and therefore the real rise in tlio cost of living is probably ■somewhat higher than 35 per cent, "'-my lit.-.: j;(i im'thri', and from page SO give the board's summing up?— The effect of the increase of Sep-

tember, 1918, amounting, to -5 per cont and DO per cent, as factors counteracting the vising expenditure on living, cannot be accurately determined until sufficient data as to ac-

tual earnings under normal conditions has lieon accumulated. "The coal owners' representative, in hifj letter to tlio Prime Minister, must have conveniently forgotten to quote tlio statement from the J3onrd of Trade report, which is estimated on the evidence given by storekeepers and miners, and which gives the cost of living at from 52 tu sli par cent, higher than the- 1914 prices. His other references to the oust of living (as given fiom the Government Statistician's statement) lay it down.that Hie increase over all is only 35 per cent, on pre-war prices. AVe will leave it to the public, and particularly to the housewives of th» Dominion, to consider the accuracy of that statement; and speaking generally, his references to tlio cost of living are in keeping with' the other inaccuracies in Mr. Pryor's 'clear explanation.'

The Increase in the Price of Coal. "Under the heading of AVagv's Conditions, tiic coal owners' representative states that if tho oiler made by the employers, viz., 10 and la per cent., were accepted, it would increase the price of coal from 2s. lid. to 3s. per ton, and that the entire additional expenditure for New Zealand would lie from 4:125,(154

to .£150,000 per annum. This is evidently another bogev-man cry of the Coal Owners' Federation, and we would like to' know by what piocess of mathematical trapeze work the secretary of the' Employers' Association arrives at these extraordinary figures? If we take the figures submitted by Mr. Pryor himself, they show that tlio actual labour cr.st of coal in the railway I rucks, to be Bs. (id. per ton; this includes the previous war bonuses and 25 per cent, and 30 per cent. Deducting these inci eases, wo may assume that tin* pre-war cost of coal should be about Cs. 3d. per ton (and this is probably; a high estimate). The proposed increases are, mean average, J2J per cent., if wo arid 12} per cent, to the pre-war cost per ton ttis.. 3d.), it works out at.Slid, per ton increase. This in a vastly different increase from that forecasted by Mr. Pryor, and instead of it reaching the enormous amount of „£150,000, it would probably reach about oiufiftli of that sum.

Minimum Wage. "Referring to the minimum v/age, iUr. Pryor ylutas, inter alia, that the iuason the liiinimunj wage has not been taken advantage of in die State mines is almost certainly duo to the fact that as it was fixed at such a loiv figure it wuulu not pay the wineis to accept it. "The present minimum wage in tho Morgan seam, Liu-rpuol State mine, is 125., plus SO per cent, war bonus; total per sliilt, Us. 7d. If we add to this tlio J5 per cent, ottered by the coalowners it brings tho minimum wage up to 17s. 3d. per shift, which is only' 7d. le.s lhan thu federation is demanding. .Ho also slates that if the 18s. per dav mini-,nam wage was granted, many of'the miners would be content to work nlowly and accept a guarantee wage. If the oli'cr of the employers were accepted, the follow-ing-is in effect the logic of Mr. IVyor's argument:—Tlie Stale minera would not impose on the minimum wage (17s. fid. per shift), as it is too low, .but if all the other miners employed in the com-pany-owncd mines had the opportunity of working under a minimum wage, they would work slow.and accept the ISs. per shift.

Mr. Pryor may be very efficient at preparing statements for tho Prime Minister, tho I'ress and, incidentally, his friends; but his references to the minimum wage are contrary to logic and common-fienso. "Tho representative of tho State Mines

Department at tho rcccnt conference did not suggest that tho minimum wage of 12s. plus the war bonus,'as it applies to the Morgan swim, had been imposed on by the miners; therefore wo may assume that no such imposition occurred, arid that the State .Mines Department is prepared to grant the minimum wauo of 17s. 3d. par shift. If, as is stated by tho owners, tho average wage of tliM miner is from 235. to its. per day, is it logical to assume that the miners of Now Zealand are so bankrupt of com-mon-sense as to work for ISs. per shift when they could earn from 235. to 24*. plus tho 1(1 per cent, increase offered by tho owners? "What the miner reauirea is that when ho is compelled to work where the loof is bad, or the coal hard, or thero is a shortage of trucks, faulty explosives, breakdowns, etc., and is through any oi I these causes prevented from earning a living wago under the piecework rate, the employer shall then pay a wage sufficient to maintain him and his family. Tho minimum wago demanded by tho federation is not very high; it. is. in fact, | very much below the amount which Mr. Alison, the coal owners' spokesman, stated c-ould be earned in any.'of the mines in New Zealand, viz., 2o to 35 per cent. The plain truth is that several of the mines have difficult sections to work, in which several of the men are already refusing to cut coal at the piecework .rates. The men put forward this simplflj and suffieiont reason for_ refusing to accept work in these places, i.e., they cannot earn sufficient to keep body and soul together, under the contract system. The employers, on the other hand, are most anxious that these sections should be worked on the usual piecework starvation basis, and they are therefore too careful of their profits to alloy.- of a minimum wage being inserted in the agreement. "Air. Pryor also made much cnpit.nl by quoting tiie figures regarding the operation of the minimum wage in the Iluntly mine during the years 1!M8, 190U, and IUIO. This is after all only a rehash of what Afr. Alison stated at the confercnce, and during the discussion on tha.t subject the representative of the miners from the Iluntly district demonstrated vi.'i'v clearly that during tho years in wliich tho minimum wage was in operation, a very largo amount of development work was taken in hand. There was also n large amount of what is termed "curly coal" worked during the same period, and the extra cost was debited under tho heading of "make-up pa/' instead of being paid for at special rates as is usually <loi.<. It was also pointed out to Air. Alison at Uts conference that the scheme worked by tho Kuntly mine owners in connection with the minimum wage was ;i well-organised piece of business in order that the Arbitration Court would emit tho minimum wage clause from tho next agreement. It may also be of imparlance to state that the Arbitration Court acted in accordance with tho evideneo given by the company, and omitted the minimum wage clauso for tho Iluntly mine. Probably tho operation by the mine owners in this matter is responsible for the statement by Mr. Pryor that the mine owners would not risk another experience of that kind. It is very doubtful if it would be as successful from tho mine owners' point of view if an attempt were made by the employers to strangle the minimum wago r,t the present time, as it had bren done by •medium of the Arbitration Court in J9lO at Iluntly.

"Mr. Pryor's reference to agreements for deficient places demonttrates very clearly that ho is ' either incapable of discussing mining conditions with any degree of .intelligence, or that he is camouflaging the real position in. reference to this clause. Ho states that provision is made in agreements for difficult places, by mean.'- of what is termed 'a deficient place clause.' The object of this is undoubtedly to impress tho psoplo that this provision is applieablo to nil agreements. This 'deficient place' douse as it applies to the West Ccost mines, according to a Magistrate's ruling, is only opurativo in regard to the thickness of tho scam of coal, and is therefore only 'a scrap of paper' as far as tho West Coast is concerned. The olTer of tho employers <lid not contain any amendment or improvement of Iliac clause, and we must conclude that the 'deficient place' quoted by Mr. Pryor is after all but a deficiency in tho cm-*-pluyors' offer, and another «wenting clause ill the workers' agreement.

Trucking by Miners, "Witih. .reference to this subject, Mr. I'ryor states that in Auscra.ia trucking is done by miners in curtain of tho coal 'mines; we ctaUcqgo Mr. Fryor to inform the public of any of the coal mines, either ■in Now. Hoiitli Wales, or Victoria (which aro the prinoipal coalfields in Australia) where ticking is done by miners. We issue the saune challenge as tar as tho coal mines in Great-.Britain are concerned; oven in two important mines in ■New Zealand (viz., Ihintiiy and Kaitaligata) mince <lo not truck coal, and in the State nYine trucking is only done by miners up to 22 yards in eo!id working. "Jn connection with the Blackball mine, the 'Secretary of the Coal Owners' Association states thai this mine is different from the otlior mines, and necessitates a certain amount of trucking by miners; this is incorrect, as the only condition required in the Blackball mine is that the miners will run the 'face-jig' in headings and inclines Wo aro prepared to allow '.his system to continue.

"There arc three principal reasons why the Miners' Federation object to the ccail hewer# trucking coal: (1) The question of safety of the irten working lit the face; (2) the question of hoalth of the miner; (3) decreased output of coal.

"lieg-'U'ding safety, it is important that two jnen should remain at the face, especially in places where the roof ig unsafe or whoro tho coal seam is high. Should an accident occur while on? miner wag away with the truck, the other ina.n would have to remain unattended until his mute returned, which might be anything from ten minutes to half-an-hour. The question of health is equally important, for when «i man leaves tho face where it is usuaiHy warm, and goc<- out to the flat sheet in tho main airway, "lie is subject to chills and all the ailments that fellow. In regard to decreased output, a miner cannot bo mining coal and at the same time attending to trucking it. It is safe to say that at least onehalf the time of 'one of the miners is occupied in trucking the coal. This demonstrates very clearly that if no trucking were done bj niincre the output of civil.would bit increase! by at least 25 per cent. 1

"In conclusion, we have no hesitation in stating: (1) That a national agreement is necessary and desirable for the eilicient working of the coal mines in Xciv Zealand; (2) that all the conditions demanded by the Miners' Federation can bs contained in that national agreement, and should any further iocal conditions be necessary, the matter can 'bo provided for in an agreomcnt with the .Miners' Federation; (3) tho increase in wages ofioved by tho employers is absolutely inadequate to meet the increased cost of living. If the Miners' Federation accepted the mine owners' ofl'er, it would mean a serious decline in the standard of living of the initio workers.

Tlio representatives of tlio miners are prepared to demonstrate that the conditions which operate to-day in the Slato mine can be applied to ail the mines in I\ew Zi'.'iuaiul, They are farther prepared to demonstrate that local conditions can bo provided tor in a uatiojml agreement for any mine in any district. "There is only out way to improve tlio pic-J'ent coal ediortage; that is to make the conditions in the mining industry so that they wili attract labour to the mines, 'l l i»is can only be done bv conceding tlio conditions and wages contained in the miners' demands. There must be eouictlling wrong with the mining industry when we know that there are at least one OioiMind capable miners employed in other industries, and who would return to coal mining if the working and living conditions were improved. "if the Government and the public nro seriously concerned about the coal Ripply, tlicy will not h.-ed the statements of men who aro .mainly conccnivd about profita, and men who have failed ty provide tlio public (if New Zealand with an ab.-xuiU'ly necK-siiry commodity which they have full control over. ' Oil the other hand, they must pay heed to the men who dij the coal and the other men who work in the industry. The.:e men, and the.;i only, can supply' that which taa public look for more than anything else at the present time—coal."