Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1922-08-08
COAL AND RAIL TROUBLES.

NAa.4.& There IS undoubtedly an intimate ASSOCIATION
aassn#betWeen the coal and rail strikes. but the railroad
bae .n .otpeople are rather inclined to resent the suggestion
kf~ternothat the strike on their roads is responsible for the
Ene y.eslow movement of coal. They maintain that even
per acunder existing conditions, they could handle coal
shipfnents 100 to $50 per cent greater than are now
Il isbeing handled, provided only that the coal operators
Etsrtedcould deliver the coal to them. This is the state
Eeeensorrtpsnnent, in part, made by the Railway Age, the chief
[ng thdailway publication in the country: -
yet; bn "The Railway Age does not blame the. coal OPP
some orators for the coal strike or its effects. But the eff
Of their spokesneh to make it appear that the
poIk Threatened coal shortage will be due to transports
IAN grafton conditions rather than to mining conditions
Es sm not tenders it necessary to present the facts regarding
Developments to date.
F,ne THE strike in the coal'mines began on April 1.
Up to that date there had been produced BY the
srninesand moved by the railways this year 129, 800,
900 tons of bitulninous coal. This was 49, COG, 600
son, aons more than in the same period of 1921. In the
|syenlrnsfour weeks before the coal strike the average ton
East ytlage of bituininous coal moved by the railways was
Thurstlo q, IA, 200 tons. If the railways had been given op-
from o. laaportunity to move coal at that rate until their owl,
aownastrike began on July l, there~would not now be any
M Mrh[..dahger OF a coal shortage,
compn But the coal strike came. In the thirteen weeks
h Nv sfrop, the time it began on April ! until the railway
readestrike began on July 1 it reduced average weekly
excepttproduction from 10,714,0 900 tons to 1906, 600 tons.
ali "la,,This was a reduction of 6 ), 200, 900 tons a week, which
+ means that in these thirteen weeks the coal strike
10 prevented the railways from moving 80, II 1000 tons
Of Unanimous coal which they easily could have
Moved, and would have moved. if the coal strike
| rF uE1QM II OIIullCU. o. u.s.
safS , s This is what the coal strike did before the rail
arnfoad strike began. What effect has the railroad
lice Hstrike had? In the last week before the railroad
shheerrittstrike began the production of bituminous coal was
the f5,226, 600 tons. The production in the next week
e--aas no significance, because it included the Fourth
( pflJuly holiday. In thu week ended July Is, total
-ofpduetion was 4,lA, 900 tons.
Fur J, Even if the entire decline in production be-
fensdsween the week ended July ! and that ended July Is
II i 'oo,oe attributed to transportation conditions it amount
Memed to only 1,11s ,ooostons or to less than one-hfth as
tesesmmasf1lueh as the average weekly reduction caused by the
Goal strike in the thirteen weeks before the railway
MssHstrike began. ' ~ ~
nome IF the coal strike should end today the railways
Grancould Immediately increase by 100 to $50 per cent
the amount of coal they are transporting, regardless
ynrnof the shop employees strike. That would not be
icy Sufficient to offset the effects already produced by
zppeenttthe coal strike. But it would be sufficient to meet
J FL the country's really pressing needs for fuel, ex-
.it1sesept possibly in the northwest.
II m If there is any industry in this country which
MerrsWsouh be justified in denouncing the coal strike and
It's results and everybody responsible for it, it is the
railroad industry. The railroads will have, their
tIaffic dennoralized by it. and because they are the
.targest consumers of coal will have their operating
UEHxpenses increased more by it than any other in
~austry."