The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1915-01-05
west VIRGINIA
IAND KENTUCKY
AO[DiTHE|)ROllN
In Coal Production While There
is a Marked Decrease in
Other Southern States.

y WASHINGTON, D. 4. ian. s..
Except In Kentucky and West Vir-
GINA, there vase marked decrease
in the production of coal in the
southern states during 1914, accord
ing to the estimates Of Edward w.
Parker. statistician. United States
Geological Survey. The business de-
preston was felt particularly in AL
ALBANIA, because OF its Importance Ns
an iron-makins state. and the fact
that the iron interests 1nvre than any
other branch of the mining industry
suffered from the unsatisfactory CON
ditions in 1914 Estimates Of the
coal production In West Virginia for
1914 varied between i 1850, 900 and
Y, 900 900 short tons. compared with
1 7,67S,522 tons in 1913, In add
tion due to the decentralization In the
iron trade, the disturbed situation in
Mexico resulted in the loss Of some
market for Alabama. coke. The
markets for Alabama coal were at
fected by the low price OF petroleum
in the southwestern states; by In
creased water-powe; development:
by the competition OF coal from Ken
lucky and Illinois rthe markets Of
Louisiana and Mississippi which are
normally supplied by Alabama; and
by the smaller bunker coal trade
which suffered because Of the cut
ting off Of exports of cotton after
the declaration OF war in Europe.
On account OF the keen competition
which developed as result OF the
decreased demand, prices were
demoralized. but up to the close Of
the year there had not been any de-,
crease in wages.
TENNESSEE. IS
In some parts Of Tennessee the de-
crease In coal production during 1914
was between 80 and 80 per cent, but
1t is estimated that for the entire state
the loss was about twenty per, cent
and that the output was less than
$500 600 short tons, compared with
$500, lS4 tons in 1913. In this state
the industry was somewhat affected
by the decrease in the demand from
the iron furnaces, but probably to a
larger extent, on account Of the fall
Ing OFF in the export OF cotton. which
reduced purchasing ability through
out the rural communities. There
was decrease Of five to fifteen per
cent In the average price, compared
with 1918. :
Kentucky an Exception.
Kentucky presented an exception
to the general rule in 1914 with a
small increase In the PRODUCTION of
coal. This increase is not to be at
tributed to anything especially faybr-
able in the way of demand, but to the
great Developments which have taken
place in the eastern part OF the state
during the last two or three years and
to the fact that this region was in a
position to fill a. large part OF the
shortage created by the idleness OF
tho Ohio mines. In the western Ken
lucky field the production in 1914
was about s92 per cent Of the output
in the preceding year. The total pro-
duction is estimated at approximate
lily 10000, 900 tons In 1914, compared
with 1s,616,000 tons in the preced-
ing year.
Maryland vs.. Virginia.
The coal production of Maryland
showed decrease Of about 500, 900
tons in 1914, and that Of Virginia
| 1890, 900 tons. In the former state
the decreased production was due
chiefly to the approaching exhaustion
OF the Big Vein, which has supplied
more than 95 per cent OF Maryland s
total coal production. Many of the
mines have already been worked out
end abandoned and others are rob
bing" pillars aud preparing to close
permanently. Developments, how
ever, are being hade upon the Tyson
and other lower but thinner beds,
and 1t is expected that within. few
Years these opera ions will be suffi-
ciently advanced to bring Maryland,s
production to its normal amount. In
Virginia the decreased demand from
the transportation companies and
! from the cotton mills in North atnd
South Carolina caused the smaller
output in 1914.