The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-01-21

which the conspiratoTs forced up coai was
found to be prohibitory and they could
not sell even the restricted amount they
were each allowed 20 mine q. the scandal
Gus prices agreed upon. Under the con-
tract with the Reading the New Jersey
Central vas TO mine 6.0o0010 tons Of
coal, which the president OF the com5ina-
ton expected TO sell st an advanced
figure and secure an immense profit. But
the combination defau.ted on lis contract
TO the extent OF 800, 900 tons. IS q conse-
quence Of which the New Jersey Central
failed TO realize $4,000 which i. had
counted upon as certainty. When the
combination was called on 10 make
good" according to contract. the Reading
system as a whole pleaded failure OF
so, 90 tons on its own account, although
some Of the roads in it had prodted.
Under these circumstances the Jersey
Central cancelled the contract.
The New York Commercial AdrertiSer re-
cites these facts and warns the anthracite
coal conspi-ators that their rapacity IS
certain to defeat it's purpose; that within
another ten years bituminous coal will be
used 20 furnish fuel gas 50 cheaply and
conveniently that the normal fuel for
manufacturing and domestic purposes
will be gas. The substitution Of gas fo-
coal as fuel in London is likely to be made
before long. 1t is proposed to prohibit
the use of coal within fifty miles OF the
metropolis and TO establish government
gas plants. II gas can be substituted for
coal in London and delivered from q
source fifty miles distant there is no rea-
son why the same system should not ap-
ply in the United States.
One of the leading members of this coal
conspiracy asked the Commercial Advertiser
this question:
What action would the law cequira OF the
owpers Of the coal properties il they found that
their best interests would be served by closing
down all of their mines and producing no coal
81 ali for the market? Could the mine owners
be compelled to mine ana sell their product
whether they wished 70 or not, and, ii ii were
done. at a loss upon every ton?
In reply the Advertiser says that the cor
poration would be obliged to show that
its coal could not be mined and brought TO
tide water except at loss, and with the
termination of it's contract its public priv
ileges would be Withdrawn and handed by
the state to somebody else If, however,
the corporation should suddenly and
maliciously close down its mines. then,
the Adcertiser says, the state or the United
States would probably interfere. We
quote:
Ii such action should be taken by the coal
combination IL is most certain that either the
common wealth Of Pennsylvania or the United
States would interfere 10 prevent gross and
manifest al outrage upon the people as the re-
fusal OF the combine 70 mine aud sell coal To
q very large extent indeed the business OF the
country is dependent upon the anthracite coal
supply, TO shut of which before the country
had adjusted itself TO another form OF fuel,
would oe wrong 50 mon.trous to warrant
The confscation OF the entire property and the
exemplary punishment OF the con-p!ratoEs who
perpetrated IT, Whether thers is already a law
ior such action or not matters very little. Legal
warrant would be found.