THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN. 877 October 23, 1914. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ lamp glasses included in the schedules to the Safety Lamps Orders of August 26, 1913, and March 16, 1914. The Board of Trade have issued a report on the ascertained changes in rates of wages in the United Kingdom in 1913, which shows that at the end of 1913 wages were at a higher level than at the end of any of the last 20 years except 1900. Mr. G. M. Cockin was elected president at the annual meeting of the South Staffordshire and Warwickshire Institute of Mining Engineers at Birmingham on Monday, and delivered his inaugural address. The Miners’ Federation of Great Britain have postponed their annual conference owing to the war, but there is to be a conference to elect officials and discuss necessary details on October 27 in London. In the Commercial Couit this morning (Friday) the case of Churm v. Dalton Main Collieries Limited is down to be heard. This is a test case in which the Yorkshire Miners’ Union are seeking to establish that the colliery company is liable for the payment of minimum wage to the trammer or filler working under a coal getter. We regret to announce the death of Sir Charles William Morrison-Bel], Bart., chairman of the South Moor Colliery Company Limited. A circular has been issued by the Government Committee on the Prevention and Relief of Distress, drawing the attention of the local representative committees acting for the City of London and the Metropolitan area, to the offer made by Sir Arthur Markham and certain coal merchants to deliver coal to the needy at stipulated maximum prices. The new National Union of Scottish Mine Workers was formally established at a special conference of the Scottish Miners’ Federation at Glasgow yesterday (Thursday). __________________________ To-day all of us are trying to help the Helping Government; but it is no exaggera- te tion to say that much of this effort Enemy, is misdirected. Amongst the sinners are the daily Press, who attack monu- mental questions with an audacity that can only be born of, as it betrays, a total lack of experience. These journals and their armchair correspondents are not even logical or consistent. At the same time that they enlarge upon the necessity of publishing to the world this country’s invincible case, they continue, by incautious and gratuitous insinuations, to impeach the honour of friendly neutrals. Whilst they order the manufacturer to spend his money like water in opening new avenues of trade, they make it increasingly difficult for him to do business even in the markets already captured by his capital and his industry. It is not our purpose here to discuss the attitude that has been adopted in a certain section of the Press with regard to the neglect of the Admiralty to seize reservists or foodstuffs on neutral vessels destined for the enemy’s territory, although well- established law in the one case, and our voluntary acceptance of the Declaration of London in the other, seem to conflict with the position that has been generally assumed. In the matter of coal, however, we feel it to be our duty to remove some false impressions that have been created by erratic journalists and correspondents. A typical misstatement is that which appeared in the Times one day this week, viz.:—“ Export of coal from Wales to Scandinavian destinations has been nearly double the amount shipped in the corre- sponding period of any other year.” As a matter of fact, a total of 34,887 tons of Welsh coal were exported to Sweden, Norway and Denmark in September, as compared with 28,515 tons in September 1913. So that literally the statement is untrue, and further, it gives a totally wrong impres- sion to the man in the street. Specifically the three Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have been singled out for castigation, and if we have charges to level at the heads of these friendly Governments, surely we should not juggle with the facts in this fashion. A table is given below which shows that exports of coal to the four From— Sweden. Norway. Denmark. , Holland. Sept. 1913. Sept. 1914. Sept. 1913. Sept. 1914. Sept. 1913.j Sept. 1914. Sept. 1913. Sept. 1914. Bristol Channel ports North-western ports North-eastern ports Humber ports Other east coast ports East Scotland ports West Scotland ports Irish ports Total Tons. 18,922 242 118,909 104,752 137,195 14,778 Tons. 22,192 1,928 245,741 178,844 165,756 19,085 Tons. 3,661 94,050 27,125 831 37,553 11,641 Tons. 5,656 9,419 106,557 40,033 1,405 62,234 8,153 297 Tons. 5,932 100,558 35,099 2,705 127,907 3,523 Tons. 6,039 2,254 166,455 54,495 1,567 178,353 1,187 Tons. 7,408 68,429 47,815 2,919 28,333 Tons. 7,202 151,432 ' 78,984 6,405 23,474 8,534 394,314 633,546 174,861 233,754 275,724 405,842 154,904 276,031 countries in question did increase in September, but this is not conclusive evidence as some corre- spondents’ seem to suggest, that the coal is merely being handed on to Germany. The figures given above show the relatively small quantity of Welsh coal included in the exports to the .four countries; the increased shipments have indeed come mainly from the North of England and the Humber. In the case of Denmark and Holland, at any rate, the bulk of the coal exported was gas coal, a fact proved by the large proportion entered as “ through-and-through ” in the detailed returns. It would not be right, of course, to allow any class of coal * whatsoever, even gas or coking coal, whose effect upon the war must be very remote, to reach enemy territory, but it may be well at the outset to dispose of the notion that we are sending Admiralty steam coal to Germany. Practically the whole of the coal from the “Admiralty” area in South Wales is now being taken up by our Navy. Some people seem to think that any sort of coal is good enough for a battleship, but we may rest assured that if Germany cannot get “best Welsh” for her Navy she will not make superhuman efforts to obtain supplies of South Yorkshire or Northumber- land steam coals, for she has coals in Westphalia that are equal to either. Within recent years the German Navy has largely dispensed with foreign coals. The Credit for 1913 provided for an expendi- ture of only £230,000 on foreign coals, whereas the estimated expenditure on Ruhr coals was nearly £900,000; in 1911, 718,000 tons of German coal were consumed by the Navy. If we admit that the product of the Ruhr and Silesian coalfields have pro- bably fallen to about 50 per cent, of the normal owing to the scarcity of labour, the output would still be ample for the needs of the country, for against the 9 million tons imported from Great Britain in former years, must be set the exports of German fuel of upwards of 45 million tons per annum; if we deduct the exports to Austria-Hun- gary and Switzerland, there is still a deficiency of 30 million tons in Germany’s external trade in fuel. Now, a considerable portion of this export went to the four countries with which we are specially dealing, as will be seen from the following, showing the exports from Great Britain and Germany in 1913 p Sweden. Norway. Denmark. Holland. rom Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Great Britain....4,563,076...2,298,345...3,034,240...2,018,401 Do. (monthly average) ...... 380,256... 191,529... 252,853... 151,533 Germany ...... 177,656... 19,170 .. 219,711...7,217,606 Do. (monthly average) ...... 14,805... 1,431... 18,301... 601,467 The Dutch collieries in the Limburg province in 1912 produced 1J million tons of coal, whereas the annual consumption of the country amounts to oyer 10 million tons. It will readily be seen that 275,000 tons of British coal would not go far to meet the needs of the country, even when allowance is made for the diminished requirements of shipping, and the possibility that a certain amount of Westphalian coal is still reaching Holland via the Rhine. On the other hand, the only districts of Germany that could be reached vid Holland are those in close proximity to the German collieries. We submit that the facts set forth above should acquit Holland of misfeasance in this matter. As regards the Scandinavian countries, the position is rather different. In the first place, it will be noted that their consumption of German coal is relatively small, and the statement made by Mr. Knudsen, the president of the Norwegian Chamber of Commerce in London, that they “ draw largely from Germany,” is not strictly true. Indeed, the extra 240,000 tons of British coal absorbed by Sweden in September far exceeds the normal supply from Germany, but it should here be noted that in the previous month Sweden took only 198,347 tons of British coal, as compared with 379,475 tons in August 1913, and 510,549 tons in August 1912. In August, Norway increased her imports of British coal from 154,887 tons to 253,467 tons, but the former figure was some- what below the average for the whole year. Denmark took 240,000 tons of British coal in August, a figure slightly below the average. Taking into consideration all the factors, we think that there is no strong presumptive evidence that any of these countries have acted as go-betweens in the illicit conveyance of British coal to Germany. In recent years the State railway systems in all these countries have- been large buyers of German coal, and the Governments, no less than private consumers, have every incentive now to lay up stocks of coal against eventualities. War places great burdens upon neutral powers, for they are impelled by motives of self-protection to keep their armies and navies in a state of readiness, and there is no evidence that our Scandinavian friends have done more than study their own necessities. At the same time, it is only abstract wisdom on the part of the British authorities to keep a watchful eye upon the actions of foreign consignees. In north and central Germany, British coal has enjoyed a very large sale in former years. Thus in 1913, 2,599,784 tons of British coal were imported at the German Baltic ports and 6,236,400 tons at Hamburg and other North Sea ports, a large proportion being bunker and gas coal. In Berlin itself 1,650,000 tons, out of a total consumption of 4,537,763 tons, were of British origin, the bulk being supplied for the gasworks in the Prussian capital. It is still possible that efforts may be made to obtain British coal for such places as Stettin, Kdnigsberg and Kiel, and for this reason we must look with some- thing approaching suspicion upon any cargoes of British coal that pass through the Sound and the Great and Little Belts. At our end the authorities are now taking the most rigid precautions. Beyond this, the British citizen should try to look at these matters fairly, and not from his own biassed point of view. No doubt many of us would like nothing better than that Germany should be cut off entirely from outside supplies of all descriptions, but if this be our policy we cannot ask neutrals to make exorbitant sacrifices on our behalf ; the shipment of contraband is not ipso facto a breach of neutrality, and the remedy rests with our Naval forces. A typical example of the unhappy compounding of bias and misstatement came to our notice the other day. In an article appearing in one of the more reputable London evening papers it was stated that nitrates were being shipped to Germany from the German - owned cyanamide factory at Odde, in Norway, and the fact was deplored that British coal was being used to supply the enemy with material for the manufacture of high explosives. The state- ment was perfectly correct, except that this factory is not owned by Germans, does not use British coal, and the nitrates yielded by the process are not suitable for the manufacture of explosives. But even if the facts had been as stated, we must remember that if we object to British coal being used in the manufacture of German goods, Germany may also object to the purchase of Norwegian goods in the manufacture of which British coal has been used.