New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-04-10

Of which the Reading may denver Zoi2 per
cent, the Lehigh - per cent. the Delaware
aud Hudson, Lackawanna, and Central OIL
New-Jersey each 15i2 per cent, ana the
PENNSYLVANIA Coal Company 10 per cent.
The programme for 1876 allowed the
Reading about the same proportion.
But the new scheme gives to the
Lehigh IS per cent instead Of about 15i2 last
year, and to the Lackawanna 15i2 per cent
instead of less than II last year, While the
proportions of all the other companies have
been reduced. II is surmsed that this special
favor to the two companies which made most
difficulty in the old combination is for the pur-
pose of reconcing them to the arrangement.
In effect then, it is proposed to cripple the
opcra,ions of the Central, of Delaware and Hud-
son, of the Pennsylvania Coal Company, ana
especially of Reading, i'll order to persuade 'he
other companies to combine The justice or Wis
dom of this plan Way be undlscoyeraDie by STOCK
holders But much light is thrown upon the
matter also, by the return of shipments during
the first quarter vl the current year. WIN
extreme low rates and free competition, the
Reading has shipped 2S1 per cent OF the
whole amount forwarded by the SIX
companies, and the Lchigh pa per cent
These two companies are apparently aDie 10
do q much larger business than the others AT
very low rates. But they consent to ship
smaller proportion of coal than they have
proved their ability to market at the lowest
rates and in free competition, the scheme
being TO force the public to pay them higher
price for the smaller quantity delivered. On
the other hand, the Pennsylvania has moved
only G.3 per cent of the total thus Tar TINS
wear. the Delaware and Lackawanna only 13.5
Der cent, the Delaware and Hudson only 1876
per cent, and the Central of Ncw-Jcrsey 1913
per cent. The latter, being bankrupt and III
the hands of receiver already, is not COM
pelIcd TO consider its debts or its financial
condition The other three companies have
not been able or have not found it desirable
to move at low prices as large a proportion as
the new scheme assigns them. The natural
inference is that they cannot stand the c0mpe-
tition, and cannot afford to deliver coal at the
prices which have prevailed. For their benefit,
and in Order to force prices upward to a rate
tolcrable to them, the two companies which
have proved their ability to increase their de-
livery at the lowest rates consent to restrict
their deliveries and help TO fix an unncces-
sary and odious burden upon the public.
1t is not by any means clear that the con-
tcmplated combination can be effected upon
any terms which will guarantee the parties
against its violation. Only short time ago,
Mr.. Gowcn, in his report to the stockholders
of the Reading, denounced the q" great over
"production by one of the companies per
"sistcd in after repeated promises and pledges
"to comply with its engagements" and then
submitted statistics which, he claimed, proved
that the company had realized total prollt OF
81 ,932, 1872 during three months after the
breaking of the combination and IN free COM
petition, whereas it had made profit OF only
S124, 9S6 during three months preceding that
event, and with monopoly prices. If he as
SCENTS to a new bargain, is it not necessary to
infer that he does SO because his company has
already made enormous contracts which gave
it, for this year at least, great advantage as
compared with the other companies How
long can a bargain under such circumstances
be expected to liycY