Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1870-02-01
aatiuuaI 9tpnbIifau
,I..n y 5iNVioRNINa,oiIIiilTlBRuLRTk lslo
Ths Coai Dssy ass.siss'

The GOAL IVY
Ills gratifying to learn that the Ways ana
Man. Committee Of the House Of Repre-
.ao,.iIves have 90 far reversed the preEl-
o,.lv reported action on the subject OF coal
as 70 agree to allow only anthracite 10 90 on
tho free list, while hituminous coal is to
stand at the present moderate rate OF duty.
This result was brought about, Il "a stated,
by Mr.. Maynard, OF Tennessee, changing
his vote. AZ there il little or no anthracite
coal likely to be imported, this decision VIII
hardly affect that article one way or the
other. whereas the retention Of tho duty on
bltumInous coal Is Of vital couosrn 70 4 most
important interest In thls most immediate
section Of country, while II docs not appear
that Il eau be Of injury TO nny other. The
assumption that the duty on bitumlnous
coal could increase tho price Of anthraelts Il
clearly unfounded, and the prics OF NcVa
Scotia coal might, evon In seaboard ctles,
were the duty taken OF, DO ultimately en-
HANGED by the dIminiAhed domestic supply
which would be the result, while the interior
and the West could have no Interest what.
ever In the reduction. In Ono, no scctibp
but New England, the headquarters Of
monopoly and high protection, was found In
favor Of the mooted repeal, and that on
account OF those selfish considerations which
seem 10 be the substructure OF her political
economy. The actuatlng motive In the pres.
ent case was an impression that the price Of
coal would DO cheapenod In hor harboFs,
Nova Scotia, from It's pearness, being almOat
ns much n part OF New England as the
Eastern Shore IL Of Maryland, and indirectly
operates rs an additional protection to her
manufactures by lessenlng the cost OF pro-
A.afta9 4, Natfass hal
advantage would accrue to the cousumer.
There, however, may be Interpretation
even on the part Of the manufacturers, for
In a late speech Of Mr.. Kelly, Of PonnsylyA.
MIA, he gives q strong array OF facts nnd
figures TO show that free coal Is not Of ueces-
slty cheap coal. r..
Mr.. Kelly sdduces statistics TO show that
tho price OF Nova Scotia coal is not regula.
ted by the cost Of production, but that Il
ranged from $500 per ton In 1859 TO $40
In 1888, 5000 In 1854, and $500 10 1865,
which covered period when IL was admit
ted DIV free, and when the unsettled condil
iian Of Ia hor and prices growing out OF the
exIstonaa OF ,,,or here augmented the cost oil
domestio products on, while additional lmmi-
Rrntlon to the PROM. COS, stable currency,
and freedom from an oppressive system OF
internal taxation, eombin, ID 70 reduce rather
than Increase the cost OF 2 reduction OF the
foreign commodity. When H. 1899 the duty
Of ti.25 per ton was imposed, MI. Kelly
shows that the price Of import,>d coal was
not increased, but, still following inc price
Of the American product, II sold, dhy paid,
at ss.b4, In 1868 at nn average OF tSlo, aud
In 1860 at an average OF fS,l0,in eacE and
every year oearing the same relation (ahout
81 ton lower because Of inferior gradc)
to Cumberland coal that II has always borne
since the latter was introduced 10 the New
Finland market. r-..
In view Of Inese tActs the states Of Mary
land aud Virginia, which arc largely, aud
Pennaylvania 10 some extent, Interested to
bituminouA coal, cannot be expected to be
indifferent to the action OF the Committee OF
Ways and Means on this subject. We have
before referred To the largo Interests Of our
own State In the great public works which
supply the coal market. A certain guam
tity OF bltumlnous coal ls used In our own
manufactures, but larger amount OF u is
consumed by the foreign and other steam
ers, 90 that, AFTER all, II any additional bur-
den Of expense were imposed by the duty, IL
would not altogether fall upon our own cit
iEens. Our national vessels also use II, as
Cumberland coal IL found the very best for
steaming purposes, but II the Government
collect a duty on an inferior article, 1t Is
thus compensated for any possible add
uonal cost OF better one. The chlOf effect
Of n repeal OF the duty would, therefore, 1t
seems, DO an injury Of the Maryland coal
interest, at once limiting It's production by
cutting Il of from q large portion Of Its
present market, without In anything like
corresponding degree benehting any other
American lnterest.-BdA. SEA.