The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-10-16
ABOUT THE COAL DUTY.


Philadelphia Press.
The efforts of free-trade newspapers to
misrepresent the reasons for imposing
duty of 81 cents ''coal containing less
than 81 per centum of fixed carbon are
very amusing. Not one of them has stated
the facts, but all of them have drawn on
their imagnations for alleged facts
The truth is that this duty was not in
the Dingley bill as it first passed the House
of Representatives, and ii did not make its
appearance in the Senate until the debate
was nearly through In that body. Mr.. ALI
son then offered, in behalf of the finance
committee, which had charge of the bill in
the Senate, substitute paragraph, which
read In part: Goal, btumnous, and all
Goals containing less than 81 per cent. OF
fixed carbon and shale, 81 cents per ton of
twenty-eight bushels, eighty pounds to the
buShel.'
Mr.. Vest called attention to the change in
sion followed d." It developed Af that 'Sf this
change was made on a petition signed by
all of the bituminous coal operators on the
Pacing coast and, strange to say, those in
British Columbia. 1t was explained by
Senators White and Perkins, of California,
and others. They stated that grain YES
sells coming from England brought semi
bitumnous coal to California as ballast,
and a judge out there had decided that
1t was anthracite coal, which admitted
1t free of duty. AS a result 100000 tons
VI IL were imported ana displaced tlldt
much bituminous coal. They asked that
1t be made to pay the same duty as bitumi-
nous coal, which ii really was
In speaking on the amendment Mr.. Vest,
the Democratic free-trade leader, said: 1T
Is naked attempt to rob the people who
are forced to buy coal upon the Pacific
coast in order that few owners OF inferior
hituminouS coal mines may charge what
they please" Mr.. Perkins, of California,
gave an explanation, in which he referred
to the fact that this alleged anthracite"
coal had been coming to California for
long time and was admitted as btuminous
and duty paid on it. But a comparatively
recent decision by a United States judge
made 1t anthracite" and that put 1t on
the free list, whereupon the imports in
desire to say that all coal under 92 per cent.
carbon is semi-bituminous. This coal has
81 to IS per cent. 1t is not anthracite, as
any chemist who makes an analysis of ii
Will say. If the amendment is adopted
anthracite coal will really come in free.
We claim that this coal is emi-bituminous,
and yet the court and appraisers have de-
cided that il is anthracite"
one OF the astonishing Misrepresentation
OF this legislation is to the effect that the
anthracite. That is pure invention. Ca
radian anthracite" was not mentioned in
the debate. petition was presented by
Sentor Sewell of New Jersey, which was
signed by the Reading, Lehigh, Erie, Penn
sylvania and all other anthracite coal COM
panies, opposing the amendment. But the
Senate adopted the amendment and the
House accepted il.
There really is no duty, as Mr. Perkins
stated, on anthracite coal such as is pro-
duced In the pennsylvania mines The ef-
fort TO make Ii appear so Is for partisan
reasons, and if not accompanied with so
much falsehood it would be silly. In fact.
ii is silly.