April 7, 1916.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

659

J. W. BAIRD AND COMPANY,

PITWOOD IMPORTERS,
WEST HARTLEPOOL,
YEARLY CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO WITH COLLIERIES.

OSBECK & COMPANY LIMITED,
PIT-TIMBER MERCHANTS,
NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.

SUPPLY ALL KINDS OF COLLIERY TIMBER.

Telegrams—“ Osbecks, Newcastle-on-Tyne.”

For other Miscellaneous Advertisements see Last
White Page.

AND

Jraraal of the Coal aod Iron Trades.

Joint Editors—

J. V. ELSDEN, D.Sc. (Lond.), F.G.S.
HUBERT GREENWELL, F.S.S., Assoc.M.I.M.E.

(At present on Active Service'}.

LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 1916.

The London coal trade continues strong and
buoyant. No change has been made in pit prices or
public prices from April 1. All classes of fuel are
scarce.

The Tyne coal trade is reported to have steadily
improved during the past week, and there are
anticipations of higher prices. Generally speaking,
freights have advanced. All the reports from
Lancashire, Yorkshire and Derbyshire mention
keenness of demand and bareness of stock at
collieries. Merchants are anxious to secure supplies
of house coal before the Easter holidays. The firm
tone of the Cardiff market has been more than
maintained, and colliery salesmen decline to make
concessions. The Scottish trade is still characterised
by a very strong demand.

A new regulation, relating to coal shipments to
Scandinavia, wTill come into force on April 25.

A meeting of the North of England Institute of
Mining and Mechanical Engineers will be held
to-morrow (Saturday) at Newcastle-on-Tyne.

The thirty-ninth annual meeting of the Mining
Institute of Scotland will be held in Glasgow
to-morrow (Saturday).

At a meeting of the Manchester Geological and
Mining Society, on Tuesday next, a paper on
“Economies in Coal Washing,” by Mr. Sherwood
Hunter, will be read.

On Wednesday, the President of the Board of
Trade received a deputation privately from the West
Hiding Chambers of Commerce regarding the coal
supply to Yorkshire industries. The deputation
appeared to be satisfied with Mr. Kunciman’s
answer.

The Scottish Coal Conciliation Board held a
prolonged meeting relative to the men’s demand for
an advance of 18J per cent. Mr. Balfour Browne,
K.C., the neutral chairman, intimated that his
decision would be announced in due course.

In an appeal by Earl Fitzwilliam against a
determination of the Commissioners of Inland
Bevenue relating to mineral rights duty, the referee
decided that the Commissioners had made a proper
assessment.

The Appeal Court reserved judgment in an appeal
by railway companies respecting through rates for
coal to the port of Barry.

The Budget proposals include the raising of the
excess profits tax to 60 per cent.

It is a mere platitude to say that
The	Mr. McKenna’s War Budget is

Budget.	disappointing. Probably any con-

ceivable Budget of similar magnitude
would be in that position when viewed from the
standpoint of individual interests. No one can
deny that the task of raising the enormous sum of
£509,000,000 by taxation is not an easy one, and it
must be considered a matter for congratulation that
the country has been proved equal to the strain upon
its resources caused by paying for so large a propor •
tion of the war expenditure out of revenue. The
principle is very sound, and the nation generally is
disposed to accept without a murmur the burden
which has to be borne.

There had been many rumours respecting the new
imposts, and numerous more or less intelligent

anticipations have not matured. Amongst these
mention may be made of the fear displayed in some
quarters that a reimposition of the coal export duty
was in contemplation. It has even been stated that a
rate of between 35 and 40 per cent, has been quoted
by underwriters to provide against such a contingency.
A section of the Press, also, has approved of the
suggestion as one that would find favour in shipping
circles. , If, however, there should be even one
reason in favour of a coal export duty at the present
time, there are so many objections to such a course
that we are convinced that it was not even seriously
contemplated by Mr. McKenna. It would have
been a 1 serious blow to our relations with our
Continental Allies gratuitously to increase the
existing difficulties in maintaining their fuel supplies,
and from a commercial standpoint it would have
been highly detrimental to select such a method of
encouraging American competition.

One of the anticipated increases in taxation is that
of the rise in excess profits tax from 50 to 60 per
cent. Sir J. Walton, in the course of the debate on
the new Budget proposal, while not disapproving of
this addition, very rightly called attention to the
inequality in its incidence. He selected as examples
the relative position of the coal owner and the ship
owner. Where ships have not been commandeered
owners are making about 200 per cent, profit, which,
after deduction of the 50 per cent, tax, leaves still
a clear profit of 100 per cent. In the case of the
coal trade, on the other hand, prices being fixed by
Act of Parliament, no such increased profit^ are
possible. The utmost that a successful colliery could
expect to be making would, in very limited cases,
amount perhaps to 40 per cent., leaving only 20 per
cent, profit after deduction of the tax. But this
comparison was not made in a complaining way by
Sir J. Walton. On the contrary, he almost drew the
inference that shipowners should be let off as lightly
as possible in order that they might be in a position
to replace lost shipping, and thus help this country to
retain, after the war, the supremacy it has hitherto
enjoyed in the world’s carrying trade. The position
will indeed need much careful scrutiny, for the
United States is making a big effort to supply as
much as possible of the existing deficiency in
shipping. It is said that that country has now
under construction somewhere near a million tons of
mercantile marine, as against her normal amount of
143,000 tons building in 1914.

These things remind us that there are two sides
to every question. To many it may seem to be an
ideal stroke to help to finance the war out of excess
profits. But the principle can be carried too far. In
any case, future business is bound to suffer by the
withdrawal of these large sums of money, which are
not to any great extent divisible profits. Where
they cannot be earmarked for the replacement of
the hard-driven plant, a large part consists of prospec-
tive new capital and reserve, and there are few
businesses in the country that will not feel more or
less shaken by this compulsory diversion of their
funds.

There has been much senseless clamour from a
certain class for an even more drastic confiscation of
profits. This arises chiefly from people who have
not the remotest conception of the principles upon
which large industrial concerns are built up. The
very word “capital ” is to them like a red rag to a bull,
and their chief idea would appear to be the
destruction of that very element of financial stability
which has enabled this country to stand this unpre-
cedented drain upon its resources.

Although not benefited by the tax on railway
tickets, traders may extract some malevolent satis-
faction. from the impost, as it has been one of their
stock grievances that the goods traffic was made to
pay for the luxurious and unprofitable conveyance
of first-class passengers in long-distance expresses.
It is not unlikely, however, that the tax may operate
to the prejudice of trade, and of all the duties it
seems to be that requiring the most justification.

Upon other features of the Budget it is scarcely
necessary to pass any comment. In a way the
Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be congratulated
upon having raised so much money with so little
serious opposition. Where criticism will be most

pronounced will be in the comparative triviality of
these new imposts, at a time when many think it
would have been possible to do greater things. The
Chancellor frankly admitted that he was not going
to do anything to relieve the congestion of tonnage
because, in his opinion, the best method of dealing
with that problem was by the growing scheme of.
prohibition of imports now being applied by the
Board of Trade. His reasons for omitting any
discussion of the question whether fiscal duties might
at the present time assist us in bringing our enemies
to their senses appear to be unconvincing. The
Budget proposals on the whole savour strongly of
being dictated by considerations of the line of least
resistance. We will not now debate the question of
import duties versus taxes on cinematographs and
football matches—or any other kind of matches—
and we can only hope that the financial outlook will
continue to be no less favourable than at present.

A series of memoranda has just

Health been issued by the Committee
of Munition appointed by the Minister of
Workers. Munitions to investigate various
matters affecting the health of
munition workers. The memoranda, of which ten
have already been published, deserve the attention
of all large employers of labour, who in many cases
have to face problems of a similar character to those
which present themselves in a war industry.

The first of the memoranda to which we may
devote some space is that dealing with hours of
work.- It may be premised that this question now
shows some deviation from its perennial aspect, for
it is inevitably influenced by considerations of what
is immediately practicable. This point lappui,
indeed, renders the Committee’s report less valuable
from a general point of view. They are satisfied
that if men are asked to work for 15 hours a day for
weeks and months on end (as is the case now in
certain areas), one of two results must follow—either
the health of the workers will break down or they
will not work at full pressure. On the other hand,
the Committee have not found that as yet the strain
of long hours has caused any serious breakdown
among workers. It is obvious that, if a stress of
work has to be overcome, it can only be done by
working overtime or by duplicating shifts. But the
problem here differs widely from that which exists
in peace time. In the first place, the multiplication
of shifts predicates a sufficiency of labour ; and
secondly, the danger of overtime is largely dependent
upon the strenuousness of the work and its capacity
to produce fatigue. As the Committee themselves
observe, “ it is evident that within the limits of
prescribed hours the speed of work and the energy
exerted differ widely.” The Committee’s general
recommendation is that the average weekly hours
(exclusive of meal times) should not exceed 65 to 67,
including overtime; that overtime should be concen-
trated within three or four days in the week, which
should preferably not be consecutive; that there
should be no Sunday work, where overtime is
worked; and that the practice of working from
Friday morning until noon Saturday without a
break should be discontinued. Generally speaking,
the Committee take fair recognition of the value of
the rest-pause, in which expression may be included
“ snap-times ” and periodical holidays, to break up
long periods of uninterrupted work. This was the
most valuable of the facts ascertained by the British
Association Committee, and has already been dis-
cussed in these columns.-" The Health Committee
discuss the same point in greater detail in another of
their memoranda (“ Industrial Fatigue and its
Causes ”). This is largely a recapitulation of the
conclusions of the Committee referred to and of the
interim report on the official investigation of indus-
trial fatigue by physiological methods.f We shall
content ourselves with the following extract from the
Committee’s report: —

In the rapid enlargement and organisation of munition
factories in this country there has been, and is, the most
urgent need for the application of the results of experience
scientifically acquired. Upon a sudden national emergency

# Colliery Guardian, September 17, 1915, p. 577.

f Colliery Guardian, October 1, 1915, p. 672.	,