The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-01-17

ttoIif PosseSSzEG LIE e IleCeaSaTy tCLlfIGy u
mind which enables him n ow to change
his views with the same degree of
CELEBRITY that marks the mental pro-.
cesses of his brilliant preceptor.
But your very severe criticism OF Mr.
ingalls, ls not the only error in my 1udg-
ment in the editorial alluded to. The ar
gumentthat because the price OF laborln
the mines of Nova Scotia is about the
same, or perhaps trifie higher than IN
the mines of West Virginia, and that
therefore Nova Scotia coal cannot
markets is a very disingenuous. | say
this not unkindly, but it appears to me
that the most superficial examination
of the subject would inform you that
it is the cost of transportation from the
West Virginia mines to the seaboard
and not the cost of labor that puts our
mine operators at a disadvantage IN
their struggle against the Nova Scotia
operators for the New England and
probably the New York markets. The
Nova Scotia or Cape Breton operators
are located on the sea coast. Our mines
are situated three hundred miles in the
interior. The distance from the water
shipping points of the Kanawha and
Pocahontas regions to Boston is about
the same as from the Cape Breton mines
to Boston. The distance from our
water shipping point-Locust Point
is several hundred miles farther. Now
if the railroads could afford to haul the
coal of West Virginia to tide water free
OF charge our operators would not nave
a very big margin to enable them to
compete with the Whitney syndicate
in the Boston markets. Take off the
tariff and it is doubtful if they could do
so, but when the necessary railroad
freights are added to the cost or the
West Virginia coal and the tariff is re-
moved from the Cape Breton product, it
will go into the seaboard markets with
such an advantage. over the output OF
the West Virginia mines that they can
no longer be competitors for the trade
the coal industry of West Virginia is
disturbed" and alarmed" at the
proposition to ''enlarge the free list to
bear thus unevenly and uniustly" upon
the chief product of our state.
The editorial. inferentially at least,
seems to seek to convey the impression
that there is something in the Wilson
bill which, if passed as reported, would
enlarge our Canadian market for coal
It says in discussing this phase of the
question: with free trade in coal be-
tween the two countries, the United
States could capture the choicest Cana
dian markets, and the increase in Cana
dian shipments to the United States
would be trif1ing in comparison.
For the sake of the argument let us
grant that this isntrue, though it is we'll
enough to bear in mind that the Whit
ney syndicate, backed by unlimited cap
,ital, has its eye on this western Can
adian market also, and by way OF water
shipments through the st. Lawrence
river can put coal as lar west as Mon
al, oh, hor r. N
hope to do; but suppose reciprocal free
trade in this modify would give us
the Western Canadian markets in eX-
change for our loss of the seaboard mar
kets of New England and New York,
can you point to single line in the
Wilson bill that provides for that recip-
rocal free, trade? Not one. 1t is, not
there. Mr.. Wilson's attention was di-
rected to the advantage that this pro-
vision would be to our operators in
case it was determined to put coal on
the free list, that at least the Canadian
government should remit the duty of
81 cents per long ton which it imposes,
before Nova Scotia coal should be adj
mitted to our ports duty free, but he
reported the bill with that provision
omitted Notwithstanding the principle
OF such reciprocal free trade was recog-
nized by his committee in the oil, salt,
lead and perhaps other schedules.
have never seen Mr.. ingalls, and
only make this plea. on his behalf be-
cause he represents the views of great
many Democrats on the subject of the
coal schedule, who are entitled to fair
hearing and fair treatment within tho
party while seeking to lmpart Informal
ton or their views on question which
is pending in their party councils.
AS to the charge that he represents
grasping corporation, whose hand Is
deep in the pockets of the people. it may
be dismissed with the single observation
that no class of freights is handled as
cheaply as coal This is especially true
in this section, and I am informed by
coal shippers that the rates are 80 low
that any very material reduction would
necessarily entail loss upon the railroad
that made it. Certainly no reduction
commsnsurate with the rs cents per ton
reduction in the tariff could be made. as
the rate from the mines of this state to
tide water is less than 81 40 per ton at
this time.
Perhaps Mr.. Ingalls, road would haul
more coal, as you suggest, under Tree
coal tariff bill, but he evidently does
not think so, and his views are shared
generally by railroad officials, who have
made very thorough research into the
subject. If there is less coal hauled by
the railroads, as Mr.. ingalls, and other
railroad officials profess to believe, then
it will necessarily follow that there will
be less mined, and less money paid out
in the mining, and consequently less
prosperity in those sections. which have
been built up in this state by mine OPP
eratons. You may think this is a sell
fish view to take of this question; that
we ought to be willing to have some OF
our prosperity abated in the interest of
cheaper fuel for the New England
states So we would but, in
the language of Mr.. Wilson. free
coal makes our great indus
try tributary" to the protected in
dustries Of that section. Everything
they produce is protected. Our great
commodity pays its tribute to advance
the prosperity of the Now England
people at the expense of our own. So
thus lar at least the interest OF our
railroads and our people run hand in
hand ON the subject OF recaiYing our