BRITISH COAL INDUSTRY

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 94, 15 January 1926, Page 9

BRITISH COAL INDUSTRY

IMPORTANCE TO COUNTRY OF EXPORT TRADE UNREST DUE TO MINERS’ LEADERS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION The president of the British Mining Association, giving evidence before the Coal Commission, declared that the mine owners were not afraid of the competition of oil. He expressed the view that the very existence of Britain depended on a larger export trade in coal, and asserted that the unrest in the industry was the result of a deliberate attempt of the miners’ leaders to prevent the reconstruction of the industry by private enterprise after decontrol. By Telsgbaph.—Press Association Copyright.

London, January 13. Mr. Evan* Williams, president of the Mining Association, questioned by the chairman of the Coal Mines Commission, Sir Herbert Samuel, declared that the mine owners were not afraid of the competition of oil in the future. They believed that in the case of big liners the cost of oil-burning vessels was greatly in excess of coal-burning steamers. There was no reason why, in the course of time, coal should not be put on liners in a form enabling the use of it with greater economy than oil. Mr. Williams expressed the view that the very existence of Britain depended on a larger export trade in coal. Large contracts were often lost simply through a difference of IJd. or 3d. a ton in price. The chairman declared that if the association’s proposals were accepted, the British miners would be working longer than the French, Belgian, or German miners. Mr. Williams replied that the wages of the British miners would be considerably higher. He asserted that the unrest in the industry was not spontaneous, but the result of a deliberate attempt of the miners’ leaders to prevent the reconstruction _ of the industry by private enterprise after decontrol. A memorandum by the Mining Association, submitted prior to taking evidence, declared that if the railway wages bill was reduced, all rates of mineral and goods traffic could be reduced 25 per cent.—Reuter. [The chief point in the evidence submitted to the Commission on the previous day on behalf of the mine-owners was a demand for the restoration of the eight-hour day in the mines.] ROYALTIES JUSTIFIED London, January 13. At the resumption of the Coal Commission proceedings, Mr. Evan Williams, cross-examined by Mr. Herbert Smith, president of the Miners’ Federation, said that he regarded the payment of £6,000,000 a year to royalty owners as equally justifiable as the payment for pit '■’ood. He refused to consider reducing the payment or nationalisation of royalties. He denied that the miners were paid a miserable wage, and said that the owners' did not desire to weaken or interfere with the Miners’ Federation, but they refused to negotiate a national agreement. Fie emphatically declared that there would be no real prosperity in the country until railway costs were brought down.—Reuter. CASE FOR THE OWNERS The case for the British coalmine owners was placed before the Coal

Commission recently by their secretary, Mr. W. A. Lee. Summed up. his statement was to the following effect:— The industry is in a bad way. _lt is naturally suffering with other industries because of the world slump. But there is a special reason for the state of this industry. Ever since 1912 the policy of some of the leaders has been less work and more wages, so that it will not be worth the while _ of, the owners to carry on. That policy was stated in "The Miners’ Next Step,’’ dated 1912, of which it is now known that the general secretary of the Miners’ Federation, Mr. A. J. Cook, and Mr. Noah Ablett, were the authors, and everything that has happened since has been in consonance with that policy. Documentary evidence in abundance was produced to prove the case. Mr. Lee showed that up to 1913 the industry was prosperous, that from 1886 to 1913 weekly wages per person employed, men, women, and children, rose from an average of 21s. 7d. to 325. 6d., exclusive of the value of allowances, such as free or cheap coal and houses or rent allowances. Mr. Lee showed that before 1912 the efforts of the miners’ leaders were directed to better wages and conditions, and were governed by the knowledge that the prosperity of the industry was essential to the workmen, and was the basis of the industry under private enterprise. But since 1912, when Mr. Smillie became president, the policy of identity of interest has been disregarded by the leaders, and political motives have governed their action. Mr. Lee traced the history of the change of policy, and claimed that examination clearly revealed the close connection between the preaching of revolutionary doctrine and the troubles from which the industry had suffered. He quoted from “The Miners’ Next Step’’ that "the old policy ol identity of interest between employers and ourselves be abolished, and a policy of open hostility installed.” Then he gave the history of the industry during the war, explaining that the Government took over the industry in a healthy condition, and handed it back in 1921 in a state approaching bankruptcy. When the Government took it over the profit was Is. 6|d. a ton; when they handed it back there was a loss of 7s. a ton. The number of persons employed had increased by,over 100,000, the output had gone down from 287,000,000 tons to 216,000.000 tons, the output per person from 256 to 178 tons, while the cost of production had increased from 9s. 54d. to 4(>s. 3d. per ton. Mr. Lee showed how the miners’ leaders during the war and after used the miners to do things which, thev thought, _ would prevent the mines from ever being decontrolled. He put in the speech of Mr. Smillie at the Miners’ Federation Conference in 1920, when he said: "We must put in a claim for an advance in wages—a substantial advance in wages—or we must force the Government to take off the 14s. 2d. on coal; either the one or the other. Either of these cuts fundamentally in the Government’s policy. They cannot decontrol if we get an increase in wages.”