New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-12-14
Production in 1916


! duction figures compiled by the Geo
logical Survey discloses that in 1916
.here was drop in production from
about February /, until April |. Then
Logan rapid increase in production
which was steadily maintained until
November I. when the high mark Of
nearly 100000 tons per day was real
lied
This year there was a drop in pro-
duction. beginning January | and con-
tinuing until April /. but the drop was
not nearly so pronounced as last year.
An increase in production followed.
which continued steadily until about
July |.
Then production began to recede.
dropping sharply until after the Presi-
dents proclamation announcing the
government schedule OF prices had been
issued. This marked the end of long
period OF uncertainty in the coal trade.
Immediately following announcement
of the government prices production
increased. but it was not until the
middle of November that the high level
of production reached in July was
duplicated.
Al no time since juno. when It be-
came certain that the government pro-
posed to fix fuel prices. has there been
an increase in production correspond
ING to that of the previous year during
the same months. y good deal OF this
{ is charged TO the two months OF uncef-
tainty following Secretary Bakers re-
pudiation Of the voluntary agreement
necotisted with the coal operators. A
/ largo mart of the remainder OF the lost
PRODUCTION is explained by general dis
/ courarement in the coal trade caused
nv the governments price regulation.
Market Prices Cut
On June 2s. Secretary Lane, in CO.
onoration with the Coal Production
/ Committcc Of tho Council Of National
defence. negotiated voluntary reduc-
tion of bituminous prices At the NINE
which. in some cases, amounted TO cut
ting the market price almost in half. ,
Two days later Secretary OF War
Baker issued his pronunciamento as
d chairman Of the Council OF National
/ defence. i'm which he rcpudiated the
agreement negotiated by Secretary
( Lane and characterized the agreed
priccs as "eXorbitant, unjust and op-
pressiye.'
The mine operators then suffered un-
certainty for two months. They had
come to Washington TO negotiate With
officers Of the government who had sp-
narent authority. They had conceded
4 a good deal. they thought. They went
home satisfied, yet sensible OF having
/ done something IN the war cause-but
/ only 10 read i'm the papers that Seere-
I tarv Baker had repudiated the work Of
/ mis- colleague and had returned the en-
/ firo question of mine prices TO the
doubtful status it had prior TO the
washington conference. From this
time production OF coal has never
reached the amount OF which the
mines are capable.
What induced Secretary Baker 10
t,rn down the Lane agreement? No
ono a, r,c capital can give sstisfsc-
,orv answer. There is plenty OF gos-
Elm hut no ono but the Secretary him
LID and the President probably knows
tbc entire story. Perhaps the most
u.idely circulated explanation was that
A,torney General Gregory, who had
nrosecutions pending against some OF
Inc onerators who were parties to the
I lane agreement, thought that his cases
would be prejudiced ly the agreement.
Took the Case TO Wilson
As the story goes. Mr.. Gregory took
T his troubles 70 the President win the
rssult that Secretary Baker nulllfied
the results Of negotiation between the
onerators and the Coal Production
/ Committee of the Council of National
! Defense.
No one in official circles is much
disposed to blame DR.. Garfield, head
of the Fuel Administration, for the
present status Of the fuel situation.
Ue inherited an embarrassing handi-