Show I GRIEVANCES OF MINERS ji I L Official of Lehigh Coal Company Shows What They Are t New York Sept ISohn B Garrett fvlcepresldcnt pf the Lehigh Coal com Ipany In an Interview made the following follow-ing statement In review of the various grievances alleged by the United MineWorkers S Mine-Workers to exist In the anthracite coal I 11 lields i This company conducts no stores nor dOs It exert any Influence upon employees to prefer one merchant 4 above another y I employs no doctors and makes no qharges against its employees for medical c med-ical service to them or their families Inquiry has satisfied me that the abovo is also the case with the companies i4t generally Semimonthly pay is observed ob-served by us In few cases It would be observed anywhere were the demand made as called for by law I Tho UBC of the word ton as applied Ito I-to 33CO pounds Is a misnomer It is simply sim-ply i unit of measure which might be called a car or n cartload or by any d other name and Is the quantity of actual i ac-tual coal plus bone slate and other foreign l material for the removal of which a certain payment Is made under the agreed cnle of wages t The price charged for powder Is an If apparent but not a real grievance In I some regions 27fi per keg Is charged In others 150 per keg This of Itself should be sufficient evidence that the aufclcnt J compensation of the miner la set Independently In-dependently of the price of powder asa u as-a net return for a days labor must be essentially the same In neighboring 1 e Cp8 ntnIY 1j IJelds whether one or the other price Is 4 charged for the powder g3 Another evidence that the price of powder doc not create an Injury to ID the miner Is shown by the fact that i when the subject was agitated sometime some-time ago one of tho largest companies offered to reduce the charge for powder to its then current value provided the Is would consent to such revision of their wages as would continue the same compensation fOr their labor as they had previously received under the agreement which was then operative This was promptly rejected showing that their purpose was to effect an increase In-crease of wages and that if i this could not be obtained they preferred to maintain main-tain thc apparent grievance which could be and has been from that time to this used as n ground of complaint or unfair treatment I Eliminating the foregoing alleged grievances from the list formulated by the United MineWorkers nothing whatever remains but ageneral demand de-mand for Increased pay and recognition I of the order as the agency through which differences should be adjusted |