"In reply to your letter of yesterday, Durham has been accepted into the Federation as all other districts have been. Whatever resolutions you may pass on general questions in your Council or Committee meetings you must be governed by majorities at the Federation."
Then there arose a dispute about some contributions which were sent to Mr Ashton. The amount was £245, 16s. 8d. The dispute was as to the period which was covered by the payment. On June 30th, in a letter dealing with the disputed point, Mr Ashton said:
I think you will agree with me that the difference on the hours question is so great that until Durham can agree to withdraw their opposition to the Miners' Eight Hours' Bill, it is most unwise to keep their connection with the Federation.
And on July 10th the cheque for the £245, 16s. 8d. was returned to Durham, and the separation mentioned above was effected by the return of the contributions.
The Executive Committee then summarised the situation as follows:—
We decided to join the Federation. We then found that we had resolutions standing against the eight hours. By our own decision of February 6th we resolved to abide by those previous resolutions. We then informed Mr Ashton, as secretary of the Federation, that we had so resolved, and enclosed the cheque for our entrance fee, with the understanding that if the receipt were sent we were accepted on those conditions. Our Council again on May 29th reaffirmed our opposition to the eight hours, and we wrote to Mr Ashton and sent our quarter's contributions, and said we were desirous of remaining members on wage questions. We were then asked to say whether we could pledge the county to come out on strike, which we could not do. The conclusion of the whole matter then is, because we could not give a pledge to come out on strike on every occasion when so ordered, and because we were resolved to oppose the eight hours by State interference, our contributions are returned, and we are told by actions—which speak louder than words—that we are not to be members. We are not to be allowed to judge of our own circumstances and peculiarities, but must submit the most important part of the conditions of our labour to those whose conditions are widely different from ours, and who, knowing nothing of our circumstances, would force us to be guided by the changes they require in the hours of labour.
THE WASHINGTON STRIKE
It will be observed that there has been no mention of local strikes except there be some peculiarity related to them. There is such in connection with this strike. It was of great importance to the Association and the maintenance of the rules. There had been numbers of illegal stoppages, and although the leaders and members at the lodges affected knew they were breaking the rule, yet they persisted, and were enabled to carry a vote in Council that they should be paid from the General Fund. It was felt that once and for all the question should be decided, and it should be shown that where the constitution of the Association was violated the violation should entail forfeiture of benefit, or else of what use was it to have rules or Committee of Management? To go on in such a loose manner was to make the rules a byword and a mockery. It was time they should have the seal of reality, and be placed on a sure foundation, so that order should be maintained, or at least those who with open eye did wrong should know that their action would not receive condonement, and they be paid the benefit of the Association, as if they had obeyed its provisions.
That was the question to be decided. Should the rule be the guide, and the Executive Committee have the management, or should lodges be allowed to stop their colliery in opposition to the constitution, and suffer none of the consequences? The Washington case afforded the opportunity for the settlement, and that is the reason why it is made part of this history. The dispute arose about the application of an agreement made by themselves. The nature of the agreement is of no import now. The action of the lodge and its relation to the rule is what we have to consider. The manager put one interpretation on the agreement, the workmen another, and they were the signatories. Numbers of agreements had been disputed prior to that, and had been brought before Joint Committee or some other properly arranged tribunal, and managed by the agents, or Executive, in accordance with rule. Washington, however, set rule aside, disregarded the Committee, and stopped the pit on the 10th of August. On the 11th the corresponding secretary met their deputation in Newcastle, and told them they were acting illegally, and that they could not be paid from the funds. The deputation, however, were confident the Council would grant them strike pay, although they admitted they were breaking the rule. Other means were adopted to induce them to resume work. The lodge appealed to the Council for a grant; it was not put on the programme. The trustees objected to the treasurer paying the money. They had taken the opinion of Mr Atherley Jones previously. The question submitted to the Counsel was: "Supposing a lodge came out on strike in violation of the rule, without first having obtained the permission of the Committee or Council, would the fact that the Council, after the men came out on strike, approved of their action alter the position or liability of the trustees?"
The opinion was as follows:—