New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-02-06
THE DUTY ON FOREIGN COAL.
WOULD REMOVING 1T DO ANY GOODi

THERE is PRACTICALLY NONE FOR lMPoRIAIioN-
USES aF BiTUMINOUs COAL
T.. L. Norris sales agent for tho west virginia Oc-
trail and Pittsburg Railway Company, which owns the
Elk Garden coal fields, from which 1t ships large
quantities of coal TO this market, asked yesterday
what effect the taking Off OF the customs duty on LOT
elga coal would have the anthracite ana p'uh"o''
coal market here. lilo replied;
"In my opinion It could have no effect wha'eNor'
The Nova Scotia coal Is of such fhlefior eu3'
that limited quantity would be used II IL couiu 10
obtained without duty and without price besides some
OF the insurance companies If not all OF them nave
refused to take risks factories where this coal Is
now used In small quantities I'm somc parts OF New
England, and what Is used Is culm upon which the
duty Is only 80 cents a tom tho reason Of this re-
fnsaI is the coal Is liable to ignite by spontaneous
combustion"
How much Of this coal could be used In this conn
try If there no duties on 1T
Il do not think that appreciable amount could
he placed In the markets here as 1t Is not suitable
fuel for the manufacturers of this country"
A PLAN THAT WOULD NOT HLLP THE POOR
~what have you to say TO the proposition which Is
being urged of taking the duty of foreign coal for
the purpose Of Furnishing tho anthracite coal COM
panies and to help the poor people of our laidf'
Such a proposition is the height of absurdty, as
no foreign coal would be used here for domestic pr-
poses 1t IS not suitable for family use. If tho pco-
pie Of this country desire to substitute bltuminous
coal for anthracite we have millions upon millions Of
tons of the best bituminous in the universe, awaiting
a market at low prices II can now be bought by the
cargo at ID 80 TO So 15 per gross ton In this cty'
You have mentioned Nova Scotia coal exclusively.
What you say In regard 10 COAL FREQ OF duty, from
Great Britain" 49,
Il would say that Great Britain could not possibly
compete with our bitumnOus steam coal, even II en-
tered free of duty. for the that the cost OF
the coal, with freight and insurance added would make
1t impractcable TO market 1t in this country
CAMEL COAL AN ARTICLE OF LUXURY.
9Would anybody DO benefited by the abolition OF
the duty on the high priced camel coal OF England p
q think 1t bcrause the camel coal you speak of
Is chiefly used by the wealthy luxury; their
houses are heated by anthracite coal The duty on
camel coal Is 10 cents ton, and believe II would
not sell al q less price IL there were no duIy on II
than the current rates that now prevail 1t is not
question of customs duty because there such
Thing none but the rich could enjoy tho luxury OF
burning English camel coal. 1t would make no differ
cncc with poor people semi poor people, whetbor
the price OF English camel coal was $lS ton dnty
on or sl7 % a ton without duty The fact of the
matter is coal is needed In this land Of plen
ty We have good camel coal of our own that Is
selling here at about one half the price OF nS
lish canneLS $500,
country could 10 universally and successfully used by
cite ?"
Il do: and the perfect success Of the coal where
now used is proof Of that fact some of our bltumn-
coal is the hest steam raising fuel in tho world
and it is cheap-much cheaper than anthracite, all
things considered"