THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN _______________________________________________________________________________ November 12, 1915. 981 9|d. per ton, and in traders’ wagons 7|d. per ton. The defenders resisted payment on the ground that, by arrange- ment between the parties entered into in October 1912, it was agreed that the rates for coal to Leith and Granton for shipment should be reduced to 9|d. per ton for coal in railway wagons, and 7|d. per ton for coal in traders’ wagons. The sum sued for represented the difference between the higher and lower rates. The defenders stated that the pursuers were anxious to enter into an agreement with the defenders in order to induce them to refrain from supporting the Bill promoted in the Parliamentary session of 1911-12 to authorise the construction of railways in the Lothians, with the object of securing cheaper railway rates. Negotiations took place between the parties, and ultimately an agreement whereby the coal was to be carried at the cheaper rate was entered into for a period of 10 years. In their answers the pursuers stated that the reduction in 1912 was from ll£d. and 9d. to 9Jd. and 7Jd. respectively, and that in consequence of increased cost of working railway traffic the railway companies, both in Scotland and England, put increased rates in operation, as from July 1, 1913, the increase in the case of the defenders being |d. per ton. The pursuers denied that they were anxious to enter into an arrangement with the defenders in 1912, as alleged, and maintained that there was no stipulation in the agreement then entered into between the parties that the rates then fixed were to continue for 10 years. Lord Hunter gave the pursuers decree for the sum sued for, with expenses. His lordship said the real question in the case was whether or not the fourth article of the agree- ment stereotyped a rate either for 10 years or in perpetuity. In his lordship’s opinion it did not. The defenders said that that reading of the article made the rates mentioned in article 4 alterable at pleasure, and conferred no benefit upon them. His lordship did not think that argument was sound. By section 14 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, it was provided that a railway company should keep a book or books showing every rate for the time being charged for the carriage of traffic other than' passengers and their luggage. If the railway company increased the rates so appearing against a trader or traders, and complaint were made to the Railway and Canal Commission against the increase as unreasonable, the onus was put upon the company by section 1 (1) of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, of proving that the increase of the rate or charge was reasonable, and for that purpose it was not sufficient to show' that the rate or charge was within any limit fixed by an Act of Parliament. A trader, therefore, derived a great advantage by having a lower rate entered in the rate books of the railway. As his lordship read article 4 of the agree- ment, it gave the defenders right to have the rates mentioned entered in the rate books, but the lower rates were subject to such alterations as might have been made upon the higher rates. In the present rate the increase of id. had been made upon the rates for all coal carried where the rate was under Is., the increase where the rate was between Is. and Is. 6d. being ^d. The relative position of the defenders to their competitors in trade in the Lothians had not been in any way prejudiced. His lordship assumed that it was within the power of a railway company to stereotype either for a lengthened period of time or in perpetuity the rate at which it would carry merchandise for a particular trader; but in view of the statutory provisions against giving pre- ferential treatment to one trader over his competitors and the necessity of revising rates on .alteration of circumstances, he did not think that such an agreement should be assumed in the absence of -a clear provision to that effect. In his opinion, the language used in the present case neither necessitated nor warranted such a construction. If the increase charged by the pursuers were unreasonable, it was open to the defenders to challenge it before the Railway and Canal Commission, and the pursuers would have to justify their charge, although by an Act passed in 1913, subsequent to the date of the agreement between parties, increased expenditure due to cost of improved labour conditions was now treated as a valid justification of increased rates. The defenders had not brought the question of the reasonableness of the charge before the statutory tribunal. They might still do so, but the question would only arise as from the date of their application. If, therefore, his lordship was right in the view which he had expressed, the defenders had no answer to the pursuer’s claim. ___________________________ The Midland Institute of Mining, Civil, and Mechanical Engineers.—A general meeting of the members of the insti- tute will be held at the Great Northern Hotel, Leeds, on Tuesday, November 16, at 3.30 p.m. The following paper will be open for discussion : “ Gas Producers for Obtaining Power and By-products from Unsaleable Fuel,” by Mr. Mansfeldt Henry Mills. Exports and Imports of Mining Machinery.—Imports and exports of mining machinery during October were as follow :— October. Jan.-October. 1914. 1915. 1914. 1915? Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Imports 67 . 144 . .. 1,297 .. .. 1,016 Exports 2,138 . .. 1,190 . .. 19,253 .. .. 14,148 The value of the imported mining machinery in October was £6,031, as compared with £6,752, and, in the 10 months, £74,279, as compared with £89,534. These figures are not inclusive of prime movers or electrical machinery. According to destination, the value of exports was as under : To— Countries in Europe ... United States of America Countries in S. America British South Africa... „ East Indies ... Australia ............ New Zealand.......... Other countries ....... October. ___________________ 1914. 1915. <£ £ 15.410.. . 4,705... 60 32... 6,060... 1,781... 28.252.. . 18,711... 6.183.. . 6,812... 1.608.. . 2,361... 1,034... 1,525... 13.796.. . 7,502 .. Jan.-October. _________________ 1914. 1915. <£ £ 135.487.. . 51,467 '900... 145 55.514.. . 17,147 248.248.. . 212,966 71,284 49,047 36.916.. . 21,485 12.890.. . 9,812 157.525.. . 126,013 Total ........ 72,403... 43,429... 718,764...488,082 The following shows the values of prime movers exported, other than electrical :— October. Jan.-October. ___________________ _______ ________ 1914. 1915.' 1914. 1915. £ <£ £ £ Rail locomotives ....368,540...148,901 ...3,298,042...2,228,022 Pumping ............. 32,387... 32,620 410,287... 398,933 Winding ............. 40... 292... 25,694 .. 12,584 PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE. ___________________________________________________ HOUSE OF COMMONS.—November 4. Mine Owners and the Finance Bill. In Committee on the Finance Bill (No. 3), on Clause 36, relating to the determination of profits and the pre-war standard, Sir C. Cory moved an amendment to subsection 3, which provides for modification of the provisions of the Fourth Schedule in cases where, as a consequence of the present war, depreciation is caused, or renewals and repairs are necessi- tated. Sir Charles wished to have the words “ dead work which is customarily charged working expenses ” included in this subsection. He said it was necessary to do a certain amount of deadwork at some collieries to recover a seam from a fault. One might have to cut through a fault or across a drift for some distance, but that vrould not be in the nature of a renewal or repair, but a work customarily charged to revenue. These faults very frequently occurred in mines, and the whole colliery would be stopped unless steps were taken to deal with them. The sum spent in this way could not be described as for renewals or repairs. That descrip- tion of work was quite different from cutting across a drift or fault, and going a long way to open up a fresh district. The work to which he referred was for the purpose of keep- ing the colliery going, and it might not be possible to do that work owing to the shortage of men, and therefore the cost of it should be allowed, although it might be done in the future. Sir A. Markham stated that certain companies in South Wales had closed different districts where the coal could not be readily won, and it would cost at least £25,000 to re-open those districts, because they could not be so cheaply dealt with during war. It had been essential in the interests of the consumers that many colliery companies should take these steps. If they had not done so they would have gone on working in districts where the coal was difficult to win, and there would have been a less output. In the coal fields faults frequently occurred, but, in postponing dealing with them, it was considered better to keep the men at the face of coal which would yield the maximum amount. Mr. Montagu thought that the re-opening of roads was obviously either a repair or a renewal, and the word “ dead- work ” was a term that included the opening of new roads and the development of new parts of the mine. Sir A. Markham pointed out that the work of driving a new road was not a capital charge, but was always charged against working costs. If a new district of a mine was developed, it was not a capital charge, but a working charge for the purpose of working the mine, and it was allowed by the income-tax people. Where a district had been closed on account of the war, it would be very unfair to the owners, who had acted solely from patriotic reasons, and not for the purpose of making money, that they should be penalised when they came to re-open the districts. Mr. Montagu said he was anxious to meet the case. He felt that if he allowed words of this kind to be intro- duced, a colliery owner might say that had it not been for the war he could have made a road through the fault. Perhaps the two hon. friends would assist him in obtaining a standard of evidence by which they could deal with the case. Amendment was then by leave withdrawn. ______ Mineral Rights Duty and Excess Profits. Discussion was resumed in Committee on Ways and Means on .the resolution proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the previous day to include royalties increased in consequence of the war amongst profits to be taxed under the excess profits tax in the Finance Bill. Mr. Rutherford enquired as to the position of a land owner who had several mines leased to different companies, and upon which he was receiving royalties, was it the intention to charge the excess profits tax upon each particular mine where there was an excess, without giving any credit to the others in which there might be diminution? Accord- ing to the excess profits -tax as at present proposed, the tax would be levied upon the whole of the mine business, whatever it might be. Mr. Dickinson asked whether it was not advisable to have the scope of the resolution widened. He wanted to know why the proposal should only apply in the case of royalties where the rent varied with the price of the minerals. It seemed reasonable to levy the excess profits tax upon all increases in royalties where it varied the price. Sir J. Walton stated that there were no such cases. Mr. McKenna, in reply, stated that the only two possible sources of excess profit would be either upon the increase of the amount of the royalties, where the rate of the royalties remained constant, or an increase in the rate of the royalty. They only proposed to tax where there was an increase in the rate of the royalty. To subject an excess profit due to an increase in the amount of the coal or iron ore to this proposal would be a mere anticipation of capital. They had allowed for obsolescence or anticipation of capital, and would have to do so in this case. In the case of the royalty owner, precisely the same principle would be followed as in every other case in the Bill. If a man owned a number of collieries or mines then he could set off the loss of one against the gain of another; but where it was not part of his business, as might be the case where a person owned shares in different companies, he could not set off the loss in one against the gain in another. A shareholder might have shares in a business which paid excess profits and shares in another business which might have lost trade, but he could not set one against the other. The question, “ That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said resolution,” was then put, and agreed to. November 9. Collieries and Excess Profits Duty. In Committee on the Finance (No. 3) Bill, Mr. S. Roberts moved an amendment to sub-section 3 of clause 37, which relates to special provisions as to pre-war standard of profits. The sub-section as it stands provides that an amount equal to 6 per cent., or an amount which would bring the interest earned on the capital up to 6 per cent., as the case might be, should be added to the profits standard, where any capital employed for the first time within three years before August 1, 1914, had only commenced to be remunerative or fully remunerative in the accounting period. The amendment was to leave out the words relating to the period of the employment of the capital. Mr. Roberts, in support of the amendment, said there were trades which took longer than three years to develop, as, for instance, the laying out of a colliery. He knew a good many cases where it had taken at least 10 years to develop a large colliery before it had become remunerative. There would be cases of great hardship, and he hoped that the right hon. gentleman would make this small concession. Mr. McKenna said he thought the purpose in view in this paragraph was slightly misapprehended. It was never intended to apply it to the case of a colliery company, or the case of a developing business whose special circumstances ought to be met by giving a higher rate of interest than 6 per cent, on the capital. Sir C. Cory said he knew of a colliery company which in a period of seven years spent over £200,000, and never made a penny piece until the end of the seven years. He thought it would be necessary to have the amendment. Mr. McKenna stated that they were dealing now only with the profit standard—the datum line. He thought the matter was dealt with quite effectively, both in this clause and in Clause 38 (Reference to Board of Referees of Questions as to Increase of Percentages). Mr. S. Roberts asked leave to withdraw the amendment, in view of the Chancellor’s statement that the point would be met in Clause 38. The amendment was by leave withdrawn. ______ Mining Instruction (Somersetshire). Mr. King asked the President of the Board of Education whether he was aware that the Somerset Education Com- mittee had not only reduced the grant for instruction in mining, but threatened to entirely withdraw this instruc- tion after May next; and whether it was at the instigation of, or with the sanction of, the Board of Education that mining instruction in Somerset was now threatened with extinction. Mr. Herbert Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education), in reply, said the President had seen a newspaper report to the effect mentioned in the first part of the question. The matter was within the discretion of the local education authority; their action was not taken at the instigation of the Board, and did not require the Board’s sanction. He would make enquiries into the matter. _______ November 10. The Shortage of Coal Wagons. Mr. Needham asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to maintain the maximum output of coal, and in view of the present shortage of wagons, arrange- ments could be made so that foreign wagons might be loaded with coal when destined to points on or to places in the direction of the railway owning the foreign wagons; whether this practice was permitted by railways in the case of goods; and, if so, what was the reason for the discrimination against coal. Mr. Runciman, in reply, said the attention of the Railway Executive Committee had been called to the suggestion, and was receiving their serious consideration. Coal traffic was largely carried in privately-owned wagons, and he was not sure that arrangements made for dealing with general mer- chandise could necessarily be applied to coal traffic. ____________________________ The Institution of Mechanical Engineers. — An ordinary general meeting will be held on the 19th inst., at 8 p.m., at the Institution of Civil Engineers, Great George-street, Westminster. The following papers will be read : (1) “ The Chemical and Mechanical Relations of Iron, Molyb- denum, and Carbon,” by J. O. Arnold, D.Met., F.R.S., Professor of Metallurgy in the University of Sheffield, and A. A. Read, D.Met., F.I.C., Professor of Metallurgy in the University of Wales; (2) “ The Cause and Effect of ‘ Ghost Lines ’ in Large Steel Forgings,” by J. O. Arnold. Sulphate of Ammonia Association.—A circular letter on the subject of home sales of sulphate of ammonia has been sent out by this association to makers, in which it is recalled that as a result of a recent meeting of manufacturers of sulphate of ammonia, the Board of Agriculture were guaranteed a supply of 8,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia for October-December delivery at a price not exceeding £15 per ton, bags free, at works, net cash. Officials of the Board had previously led manufacturers to understand that this quantity and price might be regarded as satisfactory; but the recommendations of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board to consider food supplies, and other circumstances, necessitated a change of views. Negotia- tions were therefore re-opened, and culminated in a joint meeting of both committees of the association, at which the Right Hon. Francis Acland, M.P., attended, and explained the Board’s views. After a full discussion, during which manufacturers representing all branches of the trade pointed out the large increase in the costs of production, the meeting unanimously agreed that it was desirable that up to 16,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia should be reserved by makers for November-December delivery, to be sold to farmers or factors at not over £14 10s. per ton f.o.r. makers’ works, single bags free, net cash, for lots of 10 cwt. and upwards, and that all manufacturers making 50 tons per annum and over should be required to reserve their pro- portion of this quantity at not over this price. Makers who do not supply bags should allow buyers 5s. 6d. per ton. Owing to the extraordinary conditions now prevailing, the total make of sulphate of ammonia has been considerably reduced, and it is now estimated that in order to provide a total of 16,000 tons for November-December, it will be necessary for every maker to reserve about 25 per cent, of his production (or in other words, a little over one week’s make) for each month. Each maker will be at liberty to deliver on contracts previously made, or to sell for export or to manure mixers, at the end of each month, the unsold portion of his quota. The Board of Agriculture has issued a pamphlet recommending farmers to use sulphate on autumn wheat, and the object of this arrangement is to provide them with sulphate at a reasonable price. As regards spring delivery, makers are free for the present to sell at the best prices they can obtain, but it may become necessary for them to reserve for home use, in the manner explained above, a monthly quota, which may be expected to amount to about 50 per cent, of their make for January- April.