April 20, 1916. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN. 759 respective Governments of France, Italy, and this country to exert some control over the ever rising cost of freight. It is hinted that some kind of agreement is to be made with British owners to carry coal for public bodies at fixed freights, for which purpose it seems likely that some sort of legislation will be necessary. The difficulty, however, as we have more than once pointed out, is the position of the neutral ship owner. Mr. Runciman stated on Monday, in the House of Commons, that during January and February the steamers loading coal at Cardiff, including Penarth and Barry, numbered 734. Of these only 120 were British. The actual figures were as follow : — British, 120 ; Russian, 9 ; Swedish, 36 ; Norwegian, 242 ; Danish, > 21 ; Dutch, 11 ; Belgian, 14; French, 124; Spanish, 61; Portu- guese, 4; Italian, 45 ; Greek, 40 ; Uruguayan, 4 ; Japanese, 3. Of the 42 steamers loading coal for Italy in the month of March only six were British, while 19 were Italian, and, as Mr. Runciman said, these figures prove conclusively that British ship owners had not made the rates. It is clear, therefore, that any attempt to control freights by legislation must be attended with very grave difficulty. The problem is further complicated by other con- siderations. It is imperative that nothing should be done to drive away neutral shipping from our ports. Yet this might easily happen under existing con- ditions, for there are other attractions elsewhere. There is plenty of remunerative work for coaling steamers on the other side of the Atlantic, where American coal is being shipped in large quantities to the South American ports, notwithstanding the fact that freights from Virginian ports to the River Plate touched recently the high figure of 95s. as compared with 60s. from South Wales. At any other time this difference in freights would be prohibitive for the American trade, but with the uncertainty of supply in South Wales, there has undoubtedly been a serious displacement of British coal by shipments from the United States. The fact that such highly remunerative rates prevail at American ports cannot be overlooked in any scheme to restrict freights in our own ports, for neutral shipping would naturally tend to be diverted to those waters in which such restrictions did not exist. This consideration alone would militate against any attempt to compel neutral ship owners to fall into line with British and allied owners in respect to Continental traffic. Mr. Runciman has admitted that this loss of the South American coal trade cannot be viewed without apprehension, and it will be interesting to see whether the Government is able to formulate any workable plan to relieve the situation. In other quarters it has been suggested that the public bodies in France and Italy are to some extent themselves to blame for the present high cost of fuel in those countries. Last year it would have been possible, so it is claimed, for both France and Italy to place long-term contracts for coal at prices which would have been moderate in comparison with those now current. But apparently these contracts were not made, because it was not then realised that the freight difficulty would have reached its present proportions. It is, naturally, difficult to foresee the course of freights, and the situation created by the war has been so abnormal that there is abundant excuse for this want of prevision. It is regrettable, however, that there should be a disposition on the part of our Allies to throw the whole of the blame upon this country, and particularly upon British ship owners, whose high profits are held as an evidence of unreasonable extortion. In Italy, especially, the view prevails that Mr. Runciman should have requisitioned a larger proportion of British shipping in order to have ensured the fuel supply of that country at a more reasonable figure. It is pointed out that the Italian Government has requisitioned about 60 per cent, of Italy’s small merchant marine, and that a large proportion of the Italian ships carrying coal from South Wales belong either to the State Railways, or have been requisitioned for Government purposes. In neither of these cases, it is said, are these vessels earning freights in the open market. The answer to this, however, is given by the existing freight rates to Italian ports. If these Italian vessels are not earning market rates, why is the cost of coal in Italy so high ? One is naturally driven, amidst these recrimina- tions, to the real problem which we have to face, viz., the increase of available tonnage. There is no other adequate solution, and it is satisfactory to note that this matter is engaging the attention of the Government. It is understood that Sir George Croydon Marks, in his capacity as Commissioner for the dilution of labour, has held important con- ferences with the Federation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Trades with the object of expediting the work on Tyneside, and we may be assured that everything possible will be done to push forward the completion of the large volume of merchant tonnage now under construction. With regard to Mr. Houston’s complaint of the wasteful use of merchant vessels in the Mediterranean by the naval and military authorities, this charge has been the subject of a special Government enquiry by a Commission appointed jointly by the Admiralty and the Army Council. The report of the Commission has been presented, but its recommendations have, quite properly, . not been disclosed. We cannot endorse Mr. Houston’s conclusion that this enquiry was on that account wasteful. It may even be admitted that more economical use might possibly have been made of these vessels; for so long as our soldiers and sailors are not stinted in necessary supplies, much may be forgiven. _______________________ When we commented a fortnight The TWO ago upon the House of Lords Houses decision in the case of Foran and Of Lords, others v. the Attorney-General, we did not anticipate a return to this subject after so brief an interval. But the circum- stances of this case came under discussion last week in the Upper Chamber of Parliament, anfi the Lords political do not appear always to see eye to eye with the Lords juridical in regard to these matters. It will be remembered that the law Lords, in their judgment, made some rather scathing remarks upon the action of the Inland Revenue Commissioners in bringing this case before them after their defeat in the Court of Appeal. In the course of last week’s debate upon the Lumsden case, Lord Desborough called attention to their lordships’ comments, and was promptly answered by the Lord Chancellor, who taxed him with charging the Commissioners with having attempted by question- able methods to obtain taxes to which they were not entitled. He said that Lord Desborough’s words had an ugly ring, and might lead people outside to imagine that in dealing with a Government depart- ment they were being tricked and unfairly dealt with. Apparently it was Lord Moulton’s comment in the Lumsden case that was mainly responsible for the Lord Chancellor’s outburst, for he complained that on this occasion a regrettable departure was made from the usual judicial practice in giving decisions upon controversial subjects. Upon this matter, however, it may be permissible to remark that it would be equally regrettable if political considerations were allowed to ’ have any place in legal judgments, which ought to be framed in the public interest and solely from the point of view of equity and morality. In a court of justice a Government department is entitled to no more leniency than a private individual; and, if, censure is merited no political or controversial consideration should warrant its suppression. The Lord Chancellor proceeded to defend the action of the Commissioners in the Foran case, and in so doing he made certain statements which are difficult to reconcile with the facts disclosed in the hearing. He is reported to have said that the trustees of the Appleton Farm estate deliberately abstained from making a statutory return. As a matter of fact, all they did was to request permission to defer filling up Form IV., and when the Commissioners refused this request, they did fill up the form except in regard to the value of the minerals, which, as the result shows, could not legally be demanded upon that particular form. The Lord Chancellor then went on to say that what resulted was not that the Crown took proceedings against the trustees, but that the trustees took proceedings against the Crown. What really happened was that the Crown made an illegal claim, and the trustees in self-defence con- tested it. The trustees lost their case in the court of first instance, but gained it in the Court of Appeal, whereupon the Crown carried it to the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor can scarcely claim that the trustees instituted these proceedings. The proceedings began when the Crown made its illegal claim, and this claim was pressed notwithstanding the finding of the Court of Appeal. The illegality of Form IV. in this instance was finally established in the House of Lords. We are not now concerned with the question as to how far the Inland Revenue Commissioners deserved their Lordships’ censure. The most charitable view that can be taken is that an error of judgment was made by the Commissioners—a very excusable result in view of the extreme difficulty in correctly inter- preting the Act. It is not, of course, necessary to assume that their action was prompted by any other desire than to perform the duties which the Act, in their judgment, imposed upon them. The outside public will not, we think, as a body impute to them any other motive. Nothing, therefore, is to be gained by attempting to place the Appleton Farm trustees in the position of having acted deliberately in defiance of the law, when they were merely resisting an encroachment upon what they deemed— rightly as it turned out-—to be their legal right. If they had been contending against private individuals the comments of the law Lords would probably have passed unchallenged, and it is a pity that the Lord Chancellor should have attempted to improve the case for the Commissioners either by trying to glorify their erroneous conduct of this affair, or by placing Canon Foran and his co-trustee in an entirely false position. _______________________ COAL OUTPUT IM 1915. A return is published by the Board of Trade showing the estimated quantities of coal raised in the United Kingdom in each quarter of the year 1915, and the exports and consumption during that and the two previous years, from which we take the following figures :— Year ended Dec. 31. ______A_____ 1915. 1914."^ Tons. Tons. Northumberland................. 11,102,000... 12,472,000 Durham _____...................... 33,721,000... 37,549,000 Yorkshire ....................... 40,437,000... 39,545,000 Lancashire, Cheshire and N. Wales... 24,970,”00... 26,205,000 Derby, Nottingham and Leicester ... 31,787,000... 31,409,000 Stafford, Salop,Worcester & Warwick 19,784,000... 20,279,000 South Wales and Monmouth....... 50,367,000... 53,880,000 Other English districts............ 5,467,000... 5,364,000 East of Scotland ................. 12,594,000... 14,495,000 West of Scotland................. 22,879,000... 24,353,000 Ireland.......................... 80,000... 92,000 United Kingdom.................253,188,000...265,643,000 Output of coal at mines in the United Kingdom in the undermentioned period of the years 1913, 1914, and 1915; also the quantities exported and available for consumption (1 = 1,000 tons) :— Shipped for use of Available steamers § Output.* Exports.f for con- engaged sumption. J in foreign trade.’ff Half-year ended— Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. June 30,19L3(|... 145,923 ... 37,279 ... 108,644 ... 10,087 Dec. 31, 1913||... 141,489 ... 40,028 ... 101,441 ... 10,945 June 30, 1914 ... 140,274 ... 36,390 ... 103,884 ... 10,182 Dec. 31, 1914 ... 125,369 ... 26,068 ... 99,301 ... 8,354 June 30, 1915 ... 127,826 ... 23,595 ... 104,231 ... 7,400 Dec. 31, 1915 ... 125,362 ... 22,726 ... 102,636 ... .6,231 Year 1913......... 287,412 ... 77,307 ... 210,105 ... 21,032 Year 1914......... 265,643 ... 62,458 ... 203,185 ... 18,536 Year 1915......... 253,188 ... 46,321 ... 206,867 ... 13,631 * Including coal used for colliery purposes. t Including the coal equivalent of coke and manufactured fuel. J Including coal for the use of the Admiralty, or for use as bunker coal in merchant ships. § Not including steamers taken up by the Admiralty. || Output estimated from the “Mines and Quarries^ return issued by the Home Office, and from information supplied to the Coal Mining Organisation Committee. Included in the pi eceding column. ________________________________ The report of the National Federation of Colliery Surface Workers, presented at the annual meeting in Sheffield on Monday, stated that the year had been a most prosperous one for the association. The membership (nearly 15,000) wag slightly larger than in 1914, despite enlistments. Arrange- ments were made regarding contributions to the purchase of a fleet of motor ambulances.