New-York tribune., 1913-07-14
DEFENDS ANTHRACITE TAX
Scranton Man Says Coal Regions are
Being impoverished.

To the Editor OF The Tribune
Sir: I have read the editorial in The
Tribune of Saturday. the 9th inst, en-
titled "a Barbarous Tax" and the writ
er's evident lack OF Information on this
subject suggests TO my mind the pro-
prlcty OF letting you know how this
measure. taxing anthracite coal by the
ton as mined, is viewed here In the coal
regions.
The coal industry. i'm it's economic rels-
tioE 20 the communities producing the
coal. is a peculiar one, In that II Is leaA-
ing the regions poorer each year; !. e.,
the value OF the anthracite coal taken
from under the surface is greater than
tho increase In wealth Of surface prop
erty. The only advantage to the region
IS the incidental employment given TO a
certain portion of the people living there.
The profits made out of the business do
not go. as formerly. into the pockets Of
citizens OF the region. but rather To in
crease the dividends Of the great coal car
rying railroads which are in the mining
business solely To create freight. Up TO
fifteen years ago, or even less. a very
considerable part OF the anthracite mining
industry was In the hands OF people who
lived in the coal fields, and the profits
made by them out of the business were
10 a large extent relnvested in manufact-
ures, with the result that the increase In
the manufacturing interests Of this region
TO a certain extent kept pace with the
dimnution OF the natural wealth.
The only tax heretofore levied upon an
thracte coal i'm Pennsylvania has been
one placed upon coal In the ground as
real estate, and IL has never been COM
mensuratc with the value OF the coal
either mined or In place, nor has II borne
the same relative burden that other prop
erty has been subject to. For many
years there has been an agitation I'm the
coal regions for an ad valorem tonnage
tax TO be levied upon the coal as prepared
for market in order that the communities
producing II might receive a more ade-
Quate return for the loss Of their great
natural resource. The comparison with
Il tax upon water power. cited I'm your
editorial. Is In no sense just or compa-
rable. as the watelLpower represents a
force of nature continuous, ineXhaustibe
and presumably not subject 10 diminu-
ton. while the anthracite coal supply is
rapidly shrinking quantity, certain OF
absolute exhaustion within an appreciable
range of time. In this sense IL differs
even from our timber resources labout
which there has been for years an agita-
ton In favor OF board measure tax
levied as cuD, as this form OF natural
wealth can, by the application OF scien-
tihc reforestdtion processes, be recreated
for the use OF future generations. Each
week, day and hour, however, witnesses
"A loss I'm the anthracite coal reserves
which can never be replaced
The tax provided by the act OF June q
Is 2i2 per cent al valorem per ton on coal
when mined and prepared for market, and
on the average price OF anthracite at the
mines last year d9l2) OF 81 36 amounts to
D cents and mills ton. The tax is
collected as state tax and divided
equally between the state and the coun-
ties whore the coal Is mined based upon
the tonnage OF the respective counties.
The counties share OF the tax is further
divided among the municipal subdivisions
OF the county, such as cities, boroughs
and townships. equally according to their
population by the last United States
census.
The tax is modest one and II the COM
panies which mine and carry the coal are
content to add the tax only 20 the price,
the additional burden will be very slight,
but IT, on the other hand. they use this
tax as pretext to greatly advance the
cost, then the consumers have their
quarrel with the companies rather than
with the State Of Pennsylvania, which is
only attempting by a reasonable tax, for