THE MINERS' DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 120, 22 May 1901, Page 2

THE MINERS' DISPUTE.

CONCILIATION BOARD PROCEEDINGS.

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.)

COROMANDEL, this day,

The following evidence was given before the Conciliation Board yesterday a f ternoon: — John Goldsworthy, mine manager at Opitonui for the Kauri Freehold Gold Estates, deposed that he had 30 years' experience. He considered the conditions of mining much the same now as they were 20 years ago. He knew mining to be more safe now than then. He had received no complaints regarding the rate of pay. He had made allowances for men working in wet places. He was in favour of contracting, it being good both ior the industry and also the meu. He considered there should be a clause in the conditions empowering mine managers to annul contracts. He had not known of that clause being abused in the past. Discipline in mines could not be maintained without it. The forfeiture clause did not prevent men putting in a. low price. He considered the increased rate of pay_ asked by the Union would have an injurious effect on the industry.

To Mr O'Keefe: Witness knew contractors to make 12/9J per shift at Opitonui. He did not consider Carvel's section at Omtonui very dangerous, lie never found it necessary to supply men with sulphate of iron spray to combat gelignite fumes. Mineral water was more prevalent at the Thames than Opitonui. Men had never said 8/ per day was not fujflieient. Tie did not think a contractor should be paid compensation'if the terminating1 clause in the specifications was enforced. lie considered' a manager had a perfect right to discharge men whether on contract or wages men. To Mr Drumm: Witness could not account for mining operations being carried on in other parts of the colony where wages were higher.

To Mr Potts: He had paid extra wages to six men for two months owing to the wet until dry ground was reached.

George S. Clark, mine manager, examined by Mr Montgomery, deposed he had 20 to 30 years experience in mining. He had been contracting, tributing and mine managing. He knew no reason why contracting should be abolished. He considered the abolition of contracting would have an injurious effect on the mining industry. In his own experience he had not found contracting1 conditions unfair. To Mr O'Keefe: It was not injurious to handle large quantities of mercury in cold water. He considered there were less accidents in mines now than 20 years ago. This completed the taking o$ ericTe.nce, and the Board adjourned to meet at Paeroa on Thursday next. •