The Alaska daily empire., 1914-12-29


 2. P. MCDONALD DEFENDS
 THE BERING RIVER COAL
 Wrltlue to che Seattle Postinteil'' rencer under date Of DeQebmoy, Sch 4. ?. HcDonaid. tho Moske1 eea. claimant. defends Inc Boring river coal rom the stigma that attached to ig on account ol the failure of Che govern ment test of Che product of that fieia' Ills letter follows:
 @ro che Editor In the editorial nage Of tho PostIntelligeucer o. DC. eembor l6, under tho head line. 'Ala' ska Coal Proyod after reterring to the report of Secretary Daniels on the recent test of the Matapuska coal we ind the following paragraphs
 Alter many years congress was finally induced Go make an approprl@ ton to secure a full test Of Alaska coal for navy purposes. This first appropela. ton was entirely used in getting out a quantity Of coalf from another Aiasla field. that of Boring river. where every one who had Investigated knew thai the coal was useless for navy pur. poses. A tact fully confirmed when the coal was tested
 ''l realize that the Postlntellleeneeg viii not willfully misrepresent the facts Go the disparagement of Che Der. Ing river or any other-cood heiaoin ing river or any othcr coai field such statements as the above, whether true or false. serve to discourage inYesti- ment and development m the Bering river coal field hence 1t is of che first importance to know f the facts stated are true.
 q" is 9 fact that the coal mined by the #bureau of mines from Che Boring river field and tested on the batheahip Maryland was very unsatsiactory The report of that test shows the coal con tained about 70 per cent ash and the coal clinkered badly by reason Of the foreign matter contained
 ''That tho coal tested from the Ser ng river field was not fair sample IS evident from the official reports on this coal field as published by the United States government.
 Gt is putting the case in charitable light to say that the bureau of mines demonstrated it's incompetence in min ing the coal for this test.
 Now Ii we wish to know the views of the disinterested officials of ihe government who have devoted many years to the investigation of these two coal fields. please read the lollowne analysis quoted from Bulletin 442 A by Dr. Alfred H Brooks, page SS:
 Kind of coal semtbituminous.
 Bering river averages 2S analysis moisture 41S; vol. matter l4.OO; fixed carbon 72.42; ash, 9.39.
 Mamnuska. average 16 analyses moisture 2.71; vol matter 1923; fixed carbon. 65.39; ash, 11.60.
 Again on page 30:
 e.The higher grade tsemibituminousl coals of the Boring river and Mata. nuska fields are comparable in com position and heating power with the Georges creek. New river and Poca- hontas coals of the East
 "Also the following from Bulletin S35 by Dr. G. c. Martin. of the United States geological survey who has de voted more time Co the investigation of Alaska coals than any man in the United States:
 Much Of the Boring river coal is Of such superior quality as to make ii especially suitable for use on warshipa or wherever a high.grade smokeless steaming coal is required
 Suffice it to say that the men who discovered and developed the Bering river coal field and expended some millions of dollars in so doing, are thoroughly convinced that the eBrlng river coal has no superior as steam ing coal anywhere
 ''We would not disparege the quality of the Matanuska coal, and we are pleased that the test was successfu5 for the result of this test doubtless will assure the early building of 8 railroad and the conoQuent develop. ment Of coal mining in Alaska. Nor will success In tho Matanuska field be ieopardized by disparaging any other. coal field of merit