Clinch Valley news. [volume] (Jeffersonville, Va.) 18??-2019, 1894-01-26

4
ton. Second, loss of one days
time in crossing the Atlantic means a
loss of about $1,000 in the cost of
coal alone. This may be readily un
derstood from the fact that any first
class ocean steamer will consume at
least IL tons of coal per hour, or
nearly 500 tons per day, the average
price being SIS per ton. If Atlantic
steamers desired to use Nova Scotia
coal instead Of ours why do they not
stop Mt Halifax, which is right on the
track of tho Gulf stream, aud take
coal instead OF coming to New York
to get their fuel ? And il tho mine
owners of Nova Scotia nro going to
successfully compete with our coal,
why don't they do it now? If Nova
Scotia coal were in fact competitive
coal with ours its competition could
possibly he no where else except III
seaport towns and cities, for il could
not be unloaded from the ocean vos
sells, placed OH cars and Carried to
inland towns aud cities for cumpeti
tive purposes.
81 have made no calculation of the
population, but think that from
Portland, Maine, TO the Gulf of Mex
leo, tho population of the seaport
towns and cities will not exceed
eight million, so that this whole bug
nboo, from any view you may take
OF it, amounts to nothing more than
the question whether wo are to have
competition in Tho coul trade with
eight million people while tho re
maiuder of the seventy millions of
the population of the country arc
consumers of the products of the
coal nliues
"English competition is almost too
absurd to talk about. have here
the Collicry Guardian, of London,
fol November last, which contains
London prices Of coal and coke, and
hore they arc reduced to dollars and
cents: Welch coal, $410 to $3.50
per ton; coke. $l.75 to SIS per ton.
Carnegie is advertising coke at dol
lar ton, and 81 25 for coal in New
York or Philadelphia. which cost not
more thnn 81 90 IL ton to put it there,
ought to leave profit enough for the
coal agency for the coal furnished
from this region. If they will give
tho OPERATOR this profit we can rest
i'll tho assurance of n prosperous aud
contentod people here with better
profits for the operators and better
pay for the miners.
"a great many ncople seem to lose
sight of the fact that heretofore we
hnve had substantially free coal.
have seen it stated that the Walker
tariff Of 1916 had tariff of 1925 on
coal. The fact is there was no tariff
on coal in tue Walker tariff, except.
ing TINT uron slack or culm. Prior
to tho passage OF the Mckinley bill
it was provided That there should be
a thrift of rs cents per ton on coal.
but this was virtually destroyed by
the further provision tl,nt coal i'm.
ported into the United States and
afterward used OH stenm vessels en-
gagged in coust or foreign trade,
should. under the rules prescribed
by the Secretary of the II: easury, be
subject to rebate of Is cents ton.
AS the great bulk of our coal was
used on board of steam vessels, it re
suited i'll putting tariff on coal with
one hand and taking it off with the
other. This rule of rebating actually
put coal on the free list
$50 it must be readily seen that
when the Wilson bill puts coal OH
the free list SO far rs we ARC concern
ed it leaves it where it has been for
years
For these reasons / consider that
West Virginia has nothing TO fear
from the effects of the passage of the
Wilson bill with coal on the free list. "