Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-07-04
The Short Ton of Coal.

A little more than three months after
Washington coal dealers announced
that they would sell coal in units of 1000
pounds instead of by the long ton Of
2,24o pounds, specified in the law as the
standard for the District of Columbia,
court ruling has upheld the superin-
tendent of weights and measures in his
contention that the practice is illegal.
That. at least. is the effect of the Police
Court judges decision in refusing to
quash an information against local
coal dealer in case instituted to test
the meaning Of the local law. Trial
of the case on its merits may now pro-
coed.
The Police Court decision brings up
two interesting points. One is the
long and tedious process which finally
status status that merely marks the
real beginning of extensive litigation OBJ
viously necessary to Ak the meaning Of
a statute, provided. of course, the coal
through. The coal men ought to have
been able to learn in three days
whether they were violating the law.
After three months, marked by con-
siderable amount of running around in
omcial circles, the coal men have lost
the first legal skir1nish and the real
battle is yet to come.
The second point is the merits of the
| long ton as against the short ton. The
District of Columbia, according to the
spokesman for the coal men, is one of
a very few places IN the United States
where coal is sold by the long ton. 1t
! Is sold by the short ton in Maryland
and Virginia. The short ton is the
accepted standard Of measurement
nearly everywhere, and it is naturally
as confusing to have a ton mean two
things as it would be to have a foot
a yard or a pound mean two things in
two adjacent political jurisdictions. The
coal men have suffered from the con-
fusion and have naturally sought to end
1t by trying to adopt the short ton-or
the "2,000-pound unit"-for the Dis
trict Of Columbia.
Whether they went about it the right
way or whether they can legally adopt
"2,000-pound unit" are other matters
entirely. They were never able wholly
to convince the consumers in the Dis
trict, for instance, that the price of a
''2,o00-pound unit" represented a mere
proportional reduction in the scale of
coal prices, plus whatever reductions
The suspicion seemed to linger that the
resort to the "2,000-pound unit" was in
some manner connected with a juggling
Of prices. This has not been demon
strated and it is not believed that
! Washington's coal dealers, honorable
business men, would resort to tricky
subterfuge to gain a small margin in
profit. But an attempt, on their part,
to sell" the idea of a 2,000-pound unit
by emphasizing the fact that the con-
sumner was gaining something by re-
duction in prices fell pretty fiat. The
coal men might have done better by
emphasizing the fact that they we're
seeking for their own convenience to
standardize the unit by which coal is
sold; that the difference in price meant
nothing except the difference in price
between 2,24O pounds and 1000 pounds
Of coal.
AS for the consumer, it does not make
much difference whether he buys long
ton or short ton Of coal. But uni
formity is necessary. If the coal men
have the weight of facts and of merit
back of their effort to abandon the
long ton here, they ought to be able to
win their fight. 1t should be under
stood it is their own fight, and it should
be waged primarily at amending the
law.