New-York tribune., 1912-05-27
FREIGHT RATES AND COAL PRICES.

FREIGHT RATES AND COAL PRICES.
The Meeker case. in which the Inter
state Commerce Commission has just
awarded S10,S13 damages against the
Lehigh Valley Railroad Company to an
independent coal operator, turned on
rate discrimination in favor Of the rail
roads subsidiary coal company. 1t is
one of a series of cases. and the opinions
of the commission in some of them show
that its attention has been directed to
the exorbitance Of the charge for trans.
porting anthracite coal to this city. In
one Of the Meeker cases against the
same company the commission remarks
upon the profits Of the Lehigh Valley
Railroad, which does largely a coal car
rying business. The commission says:
II will be noted that the Lehigh Val
ley's corporate income was sufficient 10
pay a dividend on the capital stock of
Is per cent in 1905 II per cent in 1906,
20 per cent in 1907 Is per cent in 1908,
IA per cent In 1909 and 20 per cent In
1910. Instead Of paying such dividends,
it has paid per cent o1 its capital
stock appropriated TO additions. better
ments and improvements sums ranging
from s5S0,2O6 to $206S,590 per annum
and has increased It's unappropriated
surplus from nothing i'm 1902 to $27.219,-
$50 in 1910.
This surplus became $50. .647 at the
end Of the fiscal year 1911.
Independent coal operators have said
that if the freight rates were put upon
a reasonable basis the increase Of wages
to miners could be paid without any
added cost to consumers The Inter
state Commerce Commission should take
up the reasonablenesS of these coal rates,
the immense protitableness of which to
the railroads it has alluded to. The pub
| lie is threatened with a series Of ad-
vanceS i'm rates. Nothing else contrib
utes to the likelihood of such advances
as does the strangle hold on the anthra-
cite industry which the present freight
rates give to the anthracite coal roads.
| TO illustrate the development of this
hold it is only necessary to quote from
the same earlier opinion Of the Interstate
Commerce Commission in the Meekcr
case. 1t said:
1t requires no extended argument to
sustain the proposition that an unrca
sonably high freight rate operates TO the
| advantage Of the Lehigh Valley Railroad
| Company as a dealer in coal. . II
| is obvious that such an advantage would
enable the railroad company and its
| alter ego, the coal company. TO monopo-
! lize the field of production and the SELL
| ing market Whatever the means en-
| ployed, ii is a fact that the railroad
coal company has monopolized the coal
| field served by it. In 1901 AZ per cent
| Of the defendants coal tonnage TO Perth
| Amboy was controlled by it and So per
cent by Independent operators; while in
| 1908 the defendant controlled % per cent
of the anthracite tonnage over its line
to Perth Amboy and the Independent
| operators per cent
Furthermore. the high freight rates re-
suit in a Juggling Of profits by which the
mining Of coal is made to look unproht-
able, or hardly profitable. If the coal
companies themselves showed large earn
ings and had declared heavy dividends
or accumulated big surpluses they could
not so boldly make the advance in price
which they have just made and the
others which they are expected to make