coal trade bulletin - Clpdigital.org

iron ore mining in this region the holdings were
relatively small. Under these circumstances, according
to Professor C. K. Leith, the losses of
mining were commonly from 35 to 40 per cent, of
the ore. These losses were due to mining the
higher grades in order to get the largest immediate
profit, and also in part to faulty mining. in recent
years there has been a steady tendency to concentration
of ownership of the iron ores, and at the
present time the greater part of the ores are owned
by large corporations able to hold them until such
time as they can be economically used. A number
of these larger corporations own smelting
plants and are holding their ore reserves for the
use of in their own plants. They, therefore, have
every motive for efficiency in mining and economy
in handling. Under present conditions, Dr. Leith
says the
LOSSES IN MINING BiON ORE
in the Lake Superior region are usually under 20
per cent., and 10 per cent, is perhaps a fair average.
With relative concentration of ownership of iron
ore in the Lake Superior region, as contrasted
with subdivision of ownership in the years gone
by, there have been great gains in conservation.
But the most disastrous losses in the mining
industry, so far as the future of the human race
is concerned, are in connection with coal. Holmes,
in a paper upon mineral wastes, presents the facts
in regard to the ruinous wastes of the unrestrained
competitive system in connection with coal. He
says that in the early days of mining, when there
was much subdivision of ownership, that not more
than 30 to 40 per cent, of the anthracite coal in the
veins mined was brought to the surface, leaving
from 60 to 70 per cent, in the ground. He states
that even at the present time not more than 50 per
cent, of the anthracite reaches the surface. The
situation is similar for bituminous coal, but until
recently the losses for such coal were substantially
half. This loss has been somewhat reduced, but
it continues to be appalling. Holmes estimates
that since the beginning of mining in the United
States, "two billion tons of anthracite and three
billion tons of bituminous coal have been left under
ground in such condition as to make its future
recovery doubtful or impossible." The principles
which from the point of view of conservation
should apply to mining of coal are well known.
So far as practicable the mines should be so
worked as to make one superimposed vein after
the other available. Coal slack should be reduced
in amount and should be utilized. No considerable
percentage of coal should be left in the ground
as pillars. If these reforms were introduced, the
losses could be reduced to half the present amounts
and possibly to one-fourth.
But to ask that any such proposals should be
THE COAL TRADE BULLETIN. 51
put into operation under the restrained competitive
system is purely chimerical. Under the Sherman
law there is no opportunity to limit output,
divide territory, or regulate prices. Five thousand
BITUMINOUS COAL OPERATORS
could produce two hundred million tons of coal per
annum beyond present demands. If the operators
could agree upon limitation of output, and division
of market so as to reduce freights, and could arrange
for reasonable prices which would give them
no more than their present profits, they would then
be able to follow these principles in mining their
coal; for tney themselves would be gainers in prolonging
the life of their mines, and, far more important,
many future generations would be the immeasurable
gainers in that they would have adequate
coal supply.
It is doubtless true that me plan proposed would
result in somewhat higher prices for bituminous
coal; but, even so, coal would be cheaper in this
country than in others. This slight additional
increment, however, would be but a small social
burden for this generation to bear in order to leave
an adequate heritage to future generations. Under
the competitive system, we are recklessly skimming
the cream of the natural resources of a virgin
continent with no regard for the rights of
our children or our children's children. They
will have a heavy score against us if we continue
to ignore the future and to apply the unrestrained
competitive system in total disregard of their
rights.
In the time that remains to me I shall proceed
to the constructive side of the question before us
and make positive proposals in regard to the things
which should be done in order tnat we may obtain
the advantages of concentration of business and
at the same time protect the public. My proposal,
gentlemen, is neither regulated competition,
nor regulated monopoly, but retention of competition,
prohibition of monopoly, permission for cooperation,
and regulation of the latter.
It has been proposed that combinations should
be so divided that no one corporation shall have
more than 50 per cent, of any business. That is
Mr. Bryan's suggestion. In the case of the Stanley
bill the presumption of the violation of the
Sherman law is against a corporation having more
than 30 per cent.
Now, it makes no difference, gentlemen, whether
you break the great combinations up so that no
one combination has more than 50 per cent, or 30
per cent, of a line of business, or so that there are
10 with 10 per cent., or 20 with 5 per cent. The
demonstration of this lies in the fact already mentioned
that thousands of farmers may and do cooperate
in marketing their products just as perfectly
as do the five great manufacturers of steel.
This they do in various parts of the United States