Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-10-24
nv THOMAS sroCKHAM BAKER.
President Carnegie Institute OF Technology.
Organizer of Third International
Conference on BituminouS Coal

Organizer of Third International
Conference on Bituminous Coal
Special Dispatch to The Star.
NEW YORK, October 24-"If you
were the dictator of the soft coal in
dustry what would you do to save it?"
This question I have put to many
coal mine owners. Their reply is in
substance as follows:
"If I were the Mussolini Of the soft
| coal industry would see that the mine
operators did not sell his coal at a
price below cost Of production" On
| this there Is unanimity.
But II I ask how the result is to be
achieved the reply is: II don't know"
or If the mine owner has a plan for
rehabilitating his industry, 1t rarely
resembles any other operators plan.
Cost Of Mining.
II Is acknowledged that in general
| It costs more to mine and sell soft coal
than the consumer pays for it. There
Is agreement that the productive ca
pacity of the mines of the United
States is far beyond the Nations
needs. There is an almost complete
| divergence of views on how these con-
ditions should be remedied.
Some mine owners believe nothing
| can or ought to be done to change the
methods Of their business. They say
| the industry has prospered in the past:
| they believe it will prosper in the
| future. The strong companies will
survive. the weak will be forced to
| the wall.
other operators, and I believe they
! are in the ma iority, say the present
status Is intolerable. They think the
price of inaction will be too high. There
| Is hardly a bituminous coal company in
the United States making money now,
| and while many mine owners are
bankrupt or approaching bankruptcy,
communities of miners are on the
verge Of starvation.
Banks in these communities are
closing, the miners families are being
fed sometimes by the coal companies,
sometimes by charitable organizations
Meantime the desperate mood Of the
miners Is being infiamed by radical
| agitators. Winter is approaching and
there is little or no hope of improve
ment.
| Those who believe in inaction are.
| fear, miSled by their hopes for the flu
ture. National prosperity may be "just
around the corner" but prosperity for
the mine owners is more remote.
James D. Francis, vice president Of
one of the very few companies at pres
Economics in the use of coal and the
substitution of other fuels, beginning
with 1919. increased SO rapidly that by
! 1929 they displaced approximately
800 900, 900 tons Of coal per annum."
These markets cannot be regained, or
at best can be regained very slowly.
Hydroelectric power, as a competitor
with steam power, is not likely to grow
more serious, but natural gas and fuel
fAY- f{vroA ~ oct will fi,Ny,n
to eat into the markets formerly served
by coal.
Economy in Use of Coal.
Another serious obstacle is the ever
growing economy in the use of coal in
the power house and on railroads. The
best practice today Is likely to become
the general practice in the near future.
This means that the consumption of
coal will not increase in proportion to
/ the growth Of the total Of electricity
generated.
Although there is lack of agreement
within the industry as to how conditions
can be improved, it may be regarded as
sign that the period of inertia may
be nearing its end that a number of
plans" are being put forward. 1t has
even been proposed. by the mine own
ers, that the Governors Of the coal
producing States employ the State
militia to close down some mines to
check overproduction However. con-
ditionS must become much worse before
this will find favor. Conferences Of the
Governors are proposed, but they are
hesitating. They doubtless have in
mind the complete failure of the con-
ferences called last Summer.
Government control or governmental
supervision seems impossible. to most
mine owners. Asked whether a change
in the Sherman antitrust law would
help, they reply generally: Yes if the
| Government would not exact too high
price in return" That is to say. if
Congress would not insist upon super
vision or control in return for permits
sion to make combinations now impos-
sible because of the Sherman law.
The unions are said to be in favor
! Of amending the present statutes. They
hope for an arrangement whereby min
| ing will be carried on under a sort of
three-fold control. They would well
come certain amount Of Government
| supervision, and of course, they want
the unions to be recognized everywhere.
| The principal duties of the Govern
ment authorities in this arrangement
would be to arbitrate any questions be-
tween unions and mine owners. Many
| operators are as firmly opposed to I'M
ions as to Government supervision.
Tax Revision Suggested.
Nearly all the plans" being ad-
vanced deal with revision of existing
methods of taxing coal lands. The pres
ent system or systems are considered
| by many to be unScientif1c and in
equitable, but opinion has not yet crys-
tallized on an acceptable new system.
Regional combinations of coal COM
panies and central sales organizations
are other topics much under discussion.
It is possible to do a certain amount
of combining and still keep within the
antitrust law, but there is timidity in
undertaking such program because
the line of demarcation between what