The Chanute times. [volume] (Chanute, Kan.) 1897-1913, 1903-01-23
THE COAL DUTY.
Good Reasons Why the Tariff on An
thracite Should Not Be Removed.

In connection with President Roose-
velt's recommendation that the duty
on anthracite coal be summarily
abolished the following communica-
ton from Capt. William w. Bates, an
eminent authority on all matters per-
tanning to the American merchant
marine, should be found both peril
nent and Instructive:
Editor The American Economist
1t has been stated that one reason for
putting the duty on coal, such as
shipped from England to California,
was that it was carried by returning
ships in the grain trade at ballast
rates, and unfairly competed with
the coal produced by our Pacific
states. But we should add to this
that the British coal from it's first ex-
portation has been monopolized in
carriage by British ships through the
discrimination policy of British under
writer's. Insurance on this coal to be
carried by American ships would
cost greatly in excess of the rate by
British ships, if such insurance could
be obtained at all at Lloyds. The
object of this discrimination was pro-
lection of the British ship. To take
off the duty of sixty-seven cents per
ton would add somewhat to this pro-
lection by raising the freight. Now
that the British ship needs protection
more than ever, and we have none in
this coal trade. and we are great
friends of the British, shall we not
help them?
william w. Bates"
It would appear that in urging the
removal of the duty on anthracite
coal the President acted without due
consideration of two important facts:
First, that the duty of sixty-seven
cents per ton on Welsh anthracite
arriving at Pacific coast ports as bal
last was at the time the Dingley tar
if was passed regarded as necessary
for the proper protection of the coal
producing interests of the Pacific
coast. That protection is as neces-
sary now as it was five and half
years ago, and its removal would un-
doubtedly be injurious to the coal
mining industry of the Pacific coast
states. Being brought over as ballast
the delivery of Welsh coal involved
practically no cost of transportation.
IL could therefore be sold at so low a
price as to compete injuriously with
domestic COAL Hence the imposition
of the duty. Even more than it was
five and half years ago that duty is
to-day justifable and necessary, for
under it's protection coal mining
operations have greatly increased on
the Pacific coast, until at this time
the industry employs many millions of
capital and pays wages to many thou
sands of men.
Second, as so clearly shown by
Capt. Bates, the removal of the duty
would amount to a direct gift or sub
sidy to the British ship owner, who
would be thereby enabled to add at
least a part of the sixty-seven cents
a ton to his freight charges and still
sell the coal at lower price than is
at present possible. We have done
much by unwise navigation laws and
regulations to crush out our shipping
and promote the shipping interests
of other countries, but it would seem
to be straining matters little too far
to put up still another bar against
domestic shipping and then to ask the
coal producers of the Pacific coast to
pay the cost.
The two reasons cited, to say moth
ing of the unwisdom of using the
tariff as a factor in labor disputes,
would seem to be sufficient to dis
suade Congress from concurring in
the recommendation of the repeal of
the duty on anthracite coal.