1024

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

May 16, 1913.

employ them. The rules under the Minimum Wage
Act give the miner some latitude as to the amount of
wages his helper should receive ; and, says Mr.
Hartshorn, this has “ the effect of placing the miner
upon his trial as an employer.” An important point is
the statement that miners have power to fix the wages
of their helpers within certain defined limitations ; and
that any increase which they give within this limitation
does not affect the collier’s right to insist upon being
paid his own minimum after deducting the actual wage
paid to his partner.

Mr. Hartshorn asserts that the colliery manager
has no voice in the matter; that it is illegal for the
colliers to pay any boy less than the minimum—as
illegal as it is for the manager to pay less than the
minimum to the miner. In some cases the miner has
the option of increasing the minimum of his helper by
6d. per day, plus percentages, without any interference
by the manager. Mr. Hartshorn has published a table
showing the lowest and highest wages which miners can
pay their helpers; and asserts that any boy or youth
getting lesa than the minimum to which he is entitled
under the list drawn up, is not being paid what is
legally due to him. At the time of the discussion upon
the minimum wage award, the actual wages of 25,000
helpers were brought under review, and it was then
found that 35 per cent, of the colliers paid less than the
minimum fixed under the award.

A compilation of the reports of the South Wales coal
and iron companies shows how exceptionally profitable
the past year has been, and how good are the prospects
at the present moment. Outputs are large, and the
bulk of the companies are in a much more favourable
financial position, not only in respect of the funds in
hand, but also because of the prices at which contracts
have been made. In respect of freights, too, the outlook
is bright. Shipowners are taking lower rates; and this
is a process likely to continue, because additional tonnage
is steadily coming on the market. It has been estimated
that the Cambrian Combine may reach a profit of
£300,000, and Ebbw Vale Company no less than £200,000.
The Blaenavon, which has passed through a period of
unfavourable experience, is also reckoned to have a profit
of about £100,000 ; and other companies might be cited.
But perhaps the market prices of the shares show the
position even more clearly :—

Great Western Collieries £5 shares are quoted £7					2s.	6d.
Burnyeat Brown			 £1			£2	16s.	Od.
Cambrian 				 £1			£4	10s.	Od.
D. Davis and Sons’		.... £1			£1	17s.	Od.
Glamorgan			 £1			£2	7s.	Od.
Guest Keen 			 £1			£3	5s.	Od.
North’s 		.... £5			£6	7s.	6d.
Powell Duffryn			 £1			£2	17s.	6d.
United National 			£10		,,	£34	10s.	Od.

There are, of course, companies that do not rise to
a high level; but in each case exceptional circumstances
are responsible. The general outlook, both for trade and
investment, is very promising. What has to be borne
in mind, however, is that whilst prices during the forth-
coming summer may keep high, profits will not occupy
anything like a relative position, because there will be
limitation of output owing to the taking of holidays
individually by the workmen. This fact (whilst shortage
of supplies may keep up the market prices for dealings
which are not under contract) will make the rate of
profit less than the quoted prices would indicate.

The Powell Duffryn Company have appointed their
assistant manager, Mr. W. R. Hann, to take the position
of commercial manager, which the late Mr. Bickerton
Pratt occupied.

The coalowners’ association met in Cardiff last
week, and it is said that during the meeting the idea
was suggested that at some collieries the management
had assisted the Federation in coercing non-unionists.
But this idea was strongly repudiated. The meeting
decided to support Messrs. D. Davis and Son in their
refusal of the request that no non-unionists should be
allowed to descend the pits.

In speaking at a meeting of the Rhondda district
on Saturday, Mr. D. Watts Morgan said the Federation
were determined that there should be no refuge for any
non-unionists in the coalfield, and if the owners wanted
to avoid trouble in the future, they ought to assist in
getting those men into line. In one sense, the
employers got as much advantage out of it as the
Federation. They refused to relieve the Federation
representatives from the obligation of representing all
the men of the collieries, whether they belonged to the
Federation or not; and, inasmuch as the owners took
that stand, it was only reasonable that they should give

them facilities for dealing with non-unionists. As to
other unions to which the men might belong, the
Federation had now to declare war, for, whatever the
consequences might be, men working at the collieries
who belonged to the Gasworkers’ Union must be
regarded as non-unionists. The Federation were not
forcing matters as to the Enginemen and Stokers’
Association, because there was a possibility of these
men coming in; but if they did not do so within a
reasonable time, the Federation would have to treat
them as non-unionists.

Syndicalists among the colliers are still giving
trouble to the Federation leaders, and, following imme-
diately upon a strong denunciation by one of the
principal of these, a meeting took place in Cardiff on
Monday, wherein about a score of the extremists
conferred as to the best means of furthering a plan of
“ industrial democracy ” which should give to the wage-
earners nothing less than “ control of the industry.”
The incident calls for notice only as an indication that
all is not plain sailing even when pressure upon non-
unionists has brought into the Federation’s ranks those
outsiders who are declared to be their chief source of
weakness. Other influences are also at work occasioning
disquiet.

In the course of an application by the Rhondda
Council to borrow money for a refuse destructor and
electrical undertaking, the clerk stated that between

1901 and 1911 the population had increased by 40,000,
and that all the available sites were being taken up for
building alterations. The ratable value was stated at
£658,000.

The tin-platers’ Conciliation Board met in Swansea
last week, and the wage agreement was renewed for
another 12 months, a joint committee of employers and
workmen being entrusted with the work of considering
the proposed restriction of output. Major Lewis, of
Gorseinon, who occupied the chair, referred to the
present unfavourable condition of trade, and said that
the employers would have been justified in asking for a
concession in wages ; but they were determined not to
take this step. The Americans, he said, had taken away
business estimated at 3,000,000 boxes, which represented
the product of 85 mills. In these circumstances, he said,
he thought the men might see their way to withdraw
all claims. Mr. John Hodge, M.P., on behalf of the
men, said that the workmen wished to co-operate
with the employers in order to bring about a general
stoppage. But the chairman opposed the suggestion
of a month’s cessation of work; and Mr. Clement,
secretary of the Employers' Association, explained the
reason. Last year by reason of the coal strike, an
opportunity was afforded the American Steel Trust to
capture markets which till then had been held by
Welsh makers; and the important fact was that they
had since held these markets, with the result that
American exports had increased by over 100 per cent.—
Mr. Hodge said he thought that the worst way of
restricting output was that which prevailed at present.
The men considered that the burden should be shared
by all concerned; and if the employers would not
consent to a general stoppage, it was not at all im-
probable that the men might take matters into their
own hands and enforce it throughout the whole trade.—
Ultimately, as stated, a joint committee was appointed
to deal with the matter.

The question of smoke abatement, more particularly in its
technical aspect, was discussed at the spring conference of
the Textile Institute, which was held at the Midland Hotel,
Manchester, on the 2nd inst. Mr. H. P. Greg, who presided,
said that the increase which had taken place in the price of
coal during the past 18 months had brought the question of
smoke abatement more prominently before them than ever
before. A paper on “ The Smoke Problem from an
Economic Standpoint,” was read by Mr. C. W. Fulton, of
Paisley. Mr. Fulton said it would be a comparatively easy
matter to get no smoke and high coal efficiency by putting
down plenty of boilers and burning coal slowly, but in
ordinary business that would not pay. Dealing with the
improvement of existing steam-raising installations, he said
that the experience of systems of mechanical stoking seemed
to be that they only gave high coal economy and smoke-
lessness within too limited a range of output. Dealing with
the possibilities of obtaining new installations which would
be smokeless, he spoke of the growing importance of the use
of internal combustion engines, and of firing boilers with
gas, as in the Bonecourt system. Mr. E. D. Simon suggested
the formation of an association of manufacturers on the
lines of one at Hamburg. A suggestion made was that users
of coal for steam-raising should try to obtain legal powers
to purchase coal according to its quality as shown by
chemical analysis.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Before Lords Halsbury, Kinnear, Shaw, and Mersey.
Coal Shipments at Burntisland.

Lochgelly Iron and Coal Company y. North British
Railway.—This was an appeal against interlocutors of the
Lord Ordinary (Guthrie) and the Secmd Division in the
action at the instance of the appellants against the
respondents. The appeal raised the question as to the
interpretation of what was known as “The Burntisland
Agreement,” an agreement made in the year 1896 between
the North British Railway Company and a number of
coal masters in Fife.

Lord Shaw, who delivered a judgment in accordance
with the views of his colleagues, said the pursuers, along
with the Cowdenbeath Coal Company, the Fife Coal
Company, and other coalmasters working the valuable
coal measures in that country, in 1896 entered into an
agreement with the respondents, the North British Railway
Company. It was at that time considered important, for
the mutual advantage of the parties, and in the interests
of the public, that a deep-water dock should be constructed
at Burntisland. Upon the one hand, the agreement binds
the railway company to authorise the Burntisland Harbour
Commissioners to give notice for a Bill in Parliament to
secure the objects aimed at. This Bill was passed, and the
dock has been consti noted. Upon the other hand, the coal-
masters became subject to obligations of a serious and highly
restrictive character. These may be generally stated thus :—
The coalmasters bound themselves to confine all their
shipments from Fife for 21 years from 1895 to ports served
by the respondent company. They further became bound
to consign their whole traffic to and frcm ports served by
the North British Railway by the line or lines of that
railway exclusively. Other provisions—and notably that
binding the Goalmasters for 21 years not to construct
or promote, or assist in the construction or promotion
of, any new lines of railway wholly or partly in Fife
—occur in the agreement, which in short appears to
have aimed at, and possibly to have secured, to the North
British Railway Company a monopoly of the coal traffic of
Fife by rail and port. In these circumstances—the traffic
thus being restricted and confined—it became in the highest
degree important that the coalmasters should be placed in
a position in which the monopoly thus created would not
operate to their disadvantage as the rivals in business of
other traders working coal measures in other parts of the
country. There are various well-known harbours and docks
on the Firth of Forth. One in particular may be mentioned
on either side—namely, Burntisland on the northern and
Grangemouth on the southern shore. The former is owned
and worked by the North British Railway, the latter by
the Caledonian Railway. The former serves large parts
of Fife and the coalmasters of that county; the latter
serves other districts of the country and competitors
for the supply of coal to home and foreign purchasers.
Section 6 of the agreement provides as follows:—“ Subject
to the consent of the Burntisland Harbour Commissioners,
which the railway company shall use their best endeavours
to obtain, the existing relative position of the harbour and
dock dues and charges on coal and pit wood at Burntisland
as compared with those at Grangemouth, Bowness, or
Methil shall be maintained, and the railway company shall
not during the said period increase the said dues at Methil.”
The railway company is represented on the Burntisland
Harbour Board by six representatives out of nine, and is
substantially in control of the position. As to the meaning
of Clause 6, Lord Shaw said in the first place, what had been
provided for was that the rival harbours should continue to
be treated so that there should be no change altering their
existing relative position in such a way as to constitute a
preferential or unequal convenience or advantage operating
against the coalmasters engaged in the Burntisland shipping
trade. In the second place it appeared to be quite vain to
contend that either party to this bargain meant to split up
harbour dues, dock dues, charges or dues on vessels, charges
or dues on goods, or any other kind of imposition which
could be laid upon the Burntisland Harbour inward traffic
in pitwood and its outward traffic in coal. The total oncost
at Burntisland Harbour of a transaction which affected
producers’ goods reaching, vid that harbour, the consuming
market, was what both parties had in view. Burntisland,
by heavy charges imposed upon its vessels, would become a
dear shipping harbour, and the coalmasters, in order to
protect themselves in the competitive market, might have
been by the state of trade forced so to lower the prices of
their coal as to make up for the extra charges now sought
to be imposed upon vessels conveying it from Burntisland.
It was productive of error to confine the analysis to the
words “ the harbour and dock dues and charges on coal and
pitwood.” The true and full phrase to be analysed was
“ the existing relative position of the harbour and dock
dues and charges on coal and pitwood at Burntisland as
compared with those at Grangemouth.” The action was
brought by the appellants upon their own agreement; and
no declarator obtained under it could be res judicata in
regard to other traders; furthermore, if these other owners
of vessels were to attempt to plead the clauses of Aiticle 6