May 5, 1916. THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN. '855 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.” or quick delivery, several Pumps, capacit es ranging from 500 gallons to 100 gallons per minute for heads ranging from 1,000 to 200 ft.: suitable for electric drive.—ANDREW BARCLAY, SONS CO. LTD., “Caledonia” Works, Kilmarnock, Scotland. *** For other Miscellaneous Advertisements see Last White Page. AND Journal of the Coal and 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, HAY 5, 1916. The London coal trade continues brisk. A better tonnage is coming forward, but stocks are still very low at the depots. Steam coal and small nuts are in strong demand. Seaborne coals, notwithstanding the danger along the coast, are arriving in good quantities. On the Tyne and Wear the demand for steam coal is overwhelming, and extraordinary prices are paid for stray lots. The forward market is strong, as buyers are keen on replenishing stocks. Lanca- shire, Yorkshire and Derbyshire offer no hope of any substantial increase of output to meet the pressing demands. The South Wales market appears to be firmer than ever, and the tonnage congestion is more marked. Reports from Scotland indicate an active demand, and the continued difficulty of coping with arrears. Prices are well maintained. The milder weather does not appear to have lessened the demands on the collieries for house coal, for merchants are anxious to secure stocks. A Daylight Saving Bill is expected as a step towards easing the coal position. The Board of Trade sent a letter to gas and electric lighting undertakings requesting them to inform their consumers that the consumption of coal for lighting purposes should be reduced by 10 per cent. . The collier “Wandle” figured in a picturesque incident. Its one gun beat off, if it did not actually destroy, a German submarine. An informal meeting of the Institution of Mining ’ and Metallurgy will be held at Burlington House, London, on May 11, to discuss “The Influence of the War _ on the Mining and Metallurgical Industries.” The late Lord St. Aldwyn will be long remembered in the coal trade for his valuable services as inde- pendent chairman of the South Wales Conciliation Board. A revised list of certified occupations has been issued, and in addition the Government has decided .on compulsion for all men of military age. Exemption appeals may still be made. The 23rd annual dinner of the Coal Trade Benevolent Association will be held in the Hotel Cecil, London, on Monday evening, at 6.30 for 7 p.m. At the Manchester Geological and Mining Society’s meeting, on Tuesday next, a paper on “The Micro- chemical Examination of Coal in Relation to its Utilisation,” by Mr. James Lomax, will be read. Judge O’Connor completed the enquiry into the disputed 5 per cent, in the anthracite pits of South Wales. His decision was reserved. Scottish miners claimed Is. a day increase in wages before the Conciliation Board at Glasgow on Tuesday. No agreement was reached, and the question was adjourned till May 18. South Wales miners demand an advance of 15 per cent, in the general wage rate based on the enhanced selling prices, and Welsh coal owners have applied to the Conciliation Board for a reduction of 7 J per cent, in the general wage rate. The coal problem in Erance still The Mew occupies the attention of the Legis- French Coal lature. As we have previously Legislation, stated, a Bill was adopted by the Chamber of Deputies on Decem- ber 29 last, having for its object the regulation of the price of coal, and embodying a truly original proposal for dealing with the high price of imported coal. This Bill was submitted to the Senate on January 20, and has since been under the considera- tion of a Commission appointed to examine the merits of this novel scheme for dealing with-an unprecedented situation. We have already dealt at some length with the details of this Bill.* Its fundamental principle is an attempt to equalise the great difference of price between French and imported English coal. It was sought to accomplish this object by the process of “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” In other words, an average was struck between the two prices, and the consumer was to be tied down to this mean price, which involved raising the cost of French coal and reducing the cost of English coal by an equivalent amount, the importer being given with one hand what was taken from the mine owner with the other —or, rather, what was ostensibly given to the mine owner by the artificial rise in the price of French coal. . The Commission of the Senate has given careful attention to this ingenious proposal, having in view the respective interests of mine owners, importers and consumers, and has discovered certain serious objections to the equalisation principle described above, which, it may be mentioned, is by no means so simple in its details as might be gathered from what has been stated. Thus, the principle was not to be rigorously applied. There were certain exemp- tions in the case of householders and small industrial consumers, who were to receive their coal at the minimum price, the balance being transferred in the form of a surtax to the intermediate selling price. This, of course, means th^t the small consumers were to benefit at the expense of the large consumers, a policy which may be more defensible from an ethical than from an economic standpoint. The moment, how- ever, a principle is departed from, it ceases to be a principle at all, and the Commission has not failed to show its weakness. It is pointed out in their report that although some benefit would accrue to indus- trialists who were users exclusively of English coal, yet this benefit would be small in comparison with the extra cost imposed upon consumers of French coal. This is established by a simple calculation. The domestic consumption of English coal in France is estimated at 6,000,000 tons. The difference in price between this coal and French coal of the same quality is about 60 fr., making a total rebate of 360 millions of francs. To this must be added another 60 millions of francs on account of concessions to the small industries, making altogether 420 millions to be met by the surtax, which on an estimated industrial consumption of 30,000,000 tons would add 14 fr. per ton to the cost of industrial coal. On the other hand, taking the price of French manufacturing coal at 35 fr. and of English coal at 85 fr., in order to reach the mean price of 60 fr. per ton, it is necessary to increase the cost of the French coal by 25 fr. and to diminish the cost of the English coal by the same amount. But to this mean price of 60 fr. we must now add the above-mentioned surtax of 14 fr., making altogether 74 fr. as the cost of coal to manufacturers. By this means those manufac- turers who had been previously using French coal at 35 fr. per ton would be faced with a rise of 39 fr., or 111 per cent., while those who had before used only English coal at 85 fr. per ton would now receive a reduction of not more than 11 fr., or 13 per cent. Thus a strange set of conditions would be established. Some manufacturers would probably feel impelled to raise the price of their products owing to the large increase in the cost of fuel, while other firms would be confronted with so small a reduction in the price of coal that they would be more likely to raise their selling price in harmony with their competitors than to lower them. Yet one of the chief benefits sought to be achieved by the provisions of this Bill was the diminution in the cost of manufactured goods. * See Colliery Guardian, February 25 and March 3, 1916. The above is an instructive example of the confusion that may result from such artificial restrictions as fixing prices by law. Another evil foreseen by the Commission is the possibility that the concessions to householders, without any distinc- tion between rich and poor, would have the effect of greatly increasing the consumption just at the time when it is more than ever necessary to economise fuel and to lessen the burden of imports. Thus a staggering blow has been dealt at the principle of the “ perequation ” of coal prices. Such a scheme, in fact, could only be expected to work under conditions of equality of sacrifice and corres- ponding relief. A mathematical treatment of economics can afford no place for concessions and exemptions. The Bill, as originally proposed, attempted too much. The relief of the poorer house- holders and the petite Industrie might better have been achieved by other means, without inter- fering with the rigorous application of the principle of equalisation, which seemed at first sight to be peculiarly applicable to the case, because it happens that the 40 million tons, representing approximately the present annual consumption of coal in France, is nearly equally divided between French and English fuel. The Commission has also objected to the distribu- tion scheme proposed by the Bill. It does not see the necessity for creating a new organisation for coal distribution, for there is already adequate machinery in existence, comprising representatives of the Ministers of Public Works, Commerce, War, and the Navy, assisted by competent professional advisers. It is urged that to institute a more rigorous con- trol of coal distribution by the State would be positively dangerous, because it would tend to stop private initiative, to check wholesale trade, and to reduce merchants and importers to mere agents of the executive. The Commission does not, however, confine itself to destructive criticism alone. It recognises the gravity of the situation caused by the rapidly increasing cost of fuel, which in the case of imported coal is already nearly 300 per cent, dearer than in normal times. It is seen, however, that this rise is almost wholly due to high freights, and it proposes to meet the difficulty at the source rather than to attempt the legislative control of prices. With this view the Minister of Public Works has been in negotiation with Mr. Runciman with the object of finding some method of controlling freights. It is stated that the British Government is not unwilling to consider a restriction in freight charges provided that it is made certain that the result will benefit the consumer and not the importer. Obviously, this assurance can only be given by the French Govern- ment, and by extending any such restrictions not only to English ship owners using French ports, but also to vessels sailing under the French flag. To this end a French coal tax is foreshadowed, accom- panied by the right of requisition at the port. This will involve fixing also maximum prices at the French pits, as has already been done in this country. Some difficulty is anticipated in regard to fixing maximum prices at the port, because it is not at all a simple matter to arrive at the true cost price of imported coal, and to separate all the factors which go to make up the selling price. Questions of exchange and supplementary charges are variable quantities, and it is feared that the proposal might involve some risk of diminishing imports. But the main contention is that freight charges are still tending upwards, and some method of giving more stability to the market conditions is necessary. The right of requisition is the logical com- plement of the right of taxation. It is believed that it will only be necessary to enforce this right in exceptional cases, and the power would be usefully exercised in case French ship owners showed any reluctance to carry coal. But the report is more vague when dealing with the question of British and neutral ship owners. With regard to the former, the energetic action of the British Government is counted upon, and similar intervention is expected to bring neutral ship owners into line. We have no details as to this intervention, but enough is given to show