Evening star., 1924-01-05
WORK TURNS DOWN
COAL DEALERS PLEA
TO CLOSE u. S. YARD
Holds Margin Cited in Offer
Will Not Cover Costs of
Handling Fuel.
DOOR is LEFT OPEN
FOR FUTURE DEALING
Interior Secretary Fears Losses
Would Be Added to Price to
Private User.

Petitfon of seven Washington coal
dealers. submitted three weeks ago
through the National Retail Coal AS
soclatfon, for abolishment of the gov
ernment fuel yard and taking over of
all the federal and District govern
ment coal business by the dealers
was refused by Secretary of the In
terror Work today. Two other at
tempts had been made by local deal
ers seeking abolishment of the yard.
winch met with the same decision by
previous Secretaries of the Interior.
secretary Work, however, left a
loophole in his decision today for
another attempt by dealers to secure
the government business, suggesting
that they may in the future propose
scale Of margins on coal sold To the
government that will permit the
government to turn over to the mer-
chants the handling Of all it's coal
business in the District in place of
the part only as to which proposals
have been made"
Claimed Saving to L. s.
Dealers submitted. thruueh their
national retail organization. on De-
cember 13 a proposal, accompanied
by certifications from bonding COM
panles, by which they would take
over the government business for Ave
years at an agreed margin of e2
cents per gross ton. They claimed.
on the basis of fuel yard margin
or sI:.S per gross ton, the s2-ceut
the government OF Sc cents per ton,
or inward of a million dollars in
the hve-year period. The following
companies joined in the bid and bond
tract: j. Maury Dove Company, L.
z. White Coal Company, John p.
Agnew & Co, Inc; James z. Coli
Hover e. Co, Consumers Co, Inc.
L. f. Steuart e. Bro, and j. Edward
Chapman.
Secretary Work found. on inyestiga-
tion by Interior Department officials.
that the claimed margin OF S1.7S.
the so-called real cost" to the fuel
yard of doing business over a three
year period ended June 80, 1921, was
erroneous In memorandum sub
mitted to him, made public today, II
is pointed out that on the basis OF
costs given to the United States Coal
Commission by five of the dealers
making the proposal, they would
actually lose. In handling the govern
ment business, from s1.03 to s3.22 De.
ton.
Sees Losses Instead.
Secretary Work was also informed
that even with allowance for econo-
mics incident TO large volume OF
business, no such amounts could or
would be absorbed, and the Inevitable
result of acceptance by the govern
ment Of the proposal made would be
not only increased cost to the tax
payer, but higher prices to the local
consumer"
taken from records of the fuel yard
makes it appear that acceptance of
the proposals of the local dealers
would result in a net loss to the
tax payer of from 81 6-lo cents TO
49h cents per ton instead of q say
ing, Secretary Work declared In u
letter to Roderick Stephens, chairman
of the governmental relations COM
mittee of the National Retail Coal
Merchants Association.
The proposals also fail to give any
satisfactory guarantee" he added,
that losses incurred by the mer-
chants in handling the governments
business would not be made up by
additional charges against private
consumers in the District as would
seem to be necessary"
The Interior Secretary placed the
total cost to the taxpayer if the gov
ernment fuel operates as at present
at s1.2S4 per ton, while the cost
to the taxpayer if the coal busines of
the government, were taken over by
dealers and the fuel yard plant be
retained in standby" condition was
placed at s1.660.. In other words. he
placed the net loss of abandonment
of the yard at 4913 cents per ton and
retention of the yard in standby"
condition at 81 clio cents.
Declares General Policy.
Four Iuvr,ths ago. when the matter
was first brought to the attention OF
Secretary Work, he declared the
government fuel yard should either
go out of business or open it's ia
cilities to all government employees"
declaring his general policy to be one
of nom n-government interference with
private business.
Taking over OF the unloading.
trucking and delivery of coal to the
curb. as proposed. would not relieve
the government of the cost OF pur-
chasing coal, making payments 70
, mines and railways, collection from
weighing and inspecting coal as re-
uuired by statute, arranging for and
inspecting demurrage and loss, II
any, between. mine weights and de-
liveri6S, interest on Capltai .useQ III
performing these functions and
amortization OF ths investment in the
present plant Qess salvage) or cost
of holding the yard in standby con-
dition for the future" the Secre-.
tary's letter said. "All these items
have been urged by you, ! believe, as
entering into the true cost of ham
ding the coal, as indeed they do"
Would Not BE Justified.
'on examining the figures 1t seems
clear that would not be justified in
recommending to Congress the pas
sage of legislation necessary to ac-
ceptance of the proposals you have
| made. May i. however, invite your
attention again again to question five
Of my letter of September IS, as 70
at what margin per ton, above mine
cost and freight, are the merchants
prepared to sell coal OF the various
| grades in this district?' 1t is possible
that on restudy of the matter you
may be able to propose scale of
| margins, that will permit the govern
ment to turn over to the merchants
| the handling of all its coal business
| in the District in place OF the part
only as to which proposals have been
made.
| "In making this suggestion ] am as
4 suming that you did not intend that
the figure you submitted, namely 90
4 continual ON Page 4 Colunn "a