ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

mines that it would not affect the large coal industry throughout the Nation.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course, they would not be able, at higher prices to compete with coal sold at a lower price; everybody knows that. They could not buy their coal at a fixed price and sell against a competitor where the price was not fixed.

Mr. SCHUSTER. But our coal would not be moved more than 50 or 100 miles. And it is not the kind of coal that can be moved. Our problem is limited to an area of 100 miles radius, at the outside. The CHAIRMAN. You think that your proposal would not bring about any serious competitive situation?

Mr. SCHUSTER. I really take that position, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Disney.

Mr. DISNEY. A while ago in suggesting that the lower price was fixed at 25 cents lower than the price in effect in another county, by the Kansas City board, you stated that probably the operators there had made money as a result of that lower price. Is that a correct statement, or did I misunderstand you?

Mr. SCHUSTER. I said that it could be. I did not specify any par ticular reason, but I merely made the statement they had fixed the price at $2.30 when they had been selling prior to that time at $2.55 in that field, and that field is immediately next to ours.

Mr. DISNEY. Has it continued?

Mr. SCHUSTER. Did it continue?
Mr. DISNEY. Yes.

Mr. SCHUSTER. Yes.

Mr. DISNEY. It appears profitable?

Mr. SCHUSTER. They sold, evidently.

Mr. DISNEY. Would that mean that the amount of consumption has increased as the result of the reduced price?

Mr. SCHUSTER. I do not know if there has been any appreciable amount of increase; so far as I know.

Mr. DISNEY. What is the coal that you say you are in competition with at $2; what area is that?

Mr. SCHUSTER. That is produced all around in district 12 and district 15, which includes Wayne and Appanoose Counties; it includes Putnam County, Schuyler County, Adair, Mason, and Randolph Counties.

Mr. DISNEY. All within the jurisdiction of the board you indicated?

Mr. SCHUSTER. Yes.

Mr. DISNEY. The district board?

Mr. SCHUSTER. Yes.

Mr. DISNEY. Are you familiar with the price of farm labor in that area?

Mr. SCHUSTER. About a dollar a day and board, of course; that is for some of them. It runs all the way from $15 a month and board up to as much as $25 and $30 a month.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jarrett.

Mr. JARRETT. Mr. Schuster, do you have organized labor?
Mr. SCHUSTER. In this district?

Mr. JARRETT. Yes; are the miners in this district organized?
Mr. SCHUSTER. Yes.

Mr. JARRETT. You have organized labor?

[ocr errors]

Mr. SCHUSTER. I do not know whether it is fully organized or not, but they do have union labor in the mines.

Mr. JARRETT. You said about 100 miles radius covers all of the mines in your district. Are the miners organized within that 100 miles radius?

Mr. SCHUSTER. Some of them are, and some are not.

Mr. JARRETT. Many of them use union labor?

Mr. SCHUSTER. Yes.

Mr. JARRETT. Do you know how much the wages are?

Mr. SCHUSTER. You would have to know the union scale in order to determine that.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Schuster.

Mr. SCHUSTER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Potter. Mr. Potter, please state your name and whom you represent.

STATEMENT OF C. J. POTTER, MANAGER OF PREPARATION, ROCHESTER & PITTSBURGH COAL CO., INDIANA, PA.

Mr. POTTER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is C. J. Potter, Indiana, Pa. I am manager of preparation of the Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co., and I am appearing here in behalf of the producers supporting the House joint resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to proceed without interruption until you have completed your statement?

Mr. POTTER. It does not make any difference to me, Mr. Chairman. I have no objection to answering questions at any time.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. POTTER. At the outset, I might state that I was formerly employed by the old Coal Commission, for over a year, and by the Bituminous Coal Division up until the time that prices were fixed, October 1. At that time I voluntarily resigned.

I wish to speak on the technical phases of the Coal Act, particularly with reference to amendments that have been suggested.

First I will address myself to the matter of truck coal. Previous witnesses have testified to the fact that in central Pennsylvania they are paying on the order of 25, 30, and 40 cents for transporting coal from the mines to the market. Let me point out to you that that transportation charge represents a net income per day of about $3.50 for both the trucker and his truck. Obviously, that cannot be true. You could not pay for the truck on that basis.

Further, he states that there was a probable increase of 50 percent in the cost of coal to the consumer due entirely to an increase in mine price. He stated that the cost of coal was $1.50 per ton at the mine.

I would like to point out that in this particular vicinity that I was speaking of, truck coals have displaced interstate coals from West Virginia moving into territory such as Altoona. There is only one way that coal could have been displaced. That is by the payment of wages which were substantially under a decent wage scale. The legitimate trucker in that particular field who is paying a reasonably high wage scale-it is not so high in terms of ordinary union wages-is very well satisfied with the operation of the act. It

gives him the opportunity to compete in this market on a reasonably fair basis.

I might point out to this committee that the rail producer in that particular field has practically ceased shipping truck coal. They knew that when this act was enacted, the first cry that would be raised would be that of the small producer, and that he must be given every consideration. To that end, many companies deliberately stopped the sale of truck coal; and by these companies I mean the larger producers.

Since the act has gone into effect, the number of small truck mines has increased very substantially. In central Pennsylvania alone there has been an increase of well over a thousand truckers.

Natu

Now, they must remember that this business that they have taken away from the rail shippers must be spread among them in such a manner that they can all compete on this business, and when they do that, it means that there is less business to go around. rally, the business of the individual truck producer, of the_small mine producer, will decline. There are many more producers. There is no more additional business in the domestic market for those particular producers.

It has been stated that the truck coals in Pennsylvania are sold very locally, and that the truck coals in West Virginia and Ohio are sold in a similar manner. That is not true.

This committee can go down to Washington Circle practically any morning and see trucks from West Virginia sitting on that corner, with coal to be sold.

Truck coals from Pennsylvania move in interstate commerce even down into eastern Maryland. Truck coals from Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, move into Michigan. This truck movement has become quite large and it has become interstate in character.

For example, in the city of Akron, the trucks have displaced 400,000 tons of steam coal in the past 2 years. Now, 400,000 tons of steam coal normally is a production of 1,600,000 tons of rail coal. So the small trucker that we have heard about has substantially increased his business and the rail producer knows that he is increasing his business. Yet the economics of distribution of that particular coal are in favor of the small trucker. Therefore, they are permitting him to continue.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question at this point? I think the witness said he did not mind being interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENKINS. You say that the trucker is a different individual than the man who produces the truck coal?

Mr. POTTER. Not entirely. When I used the word "trucker," I was referring to the complete transaction; that is, the mining and sale, plus the delivery of the coal.

Mr. JENKINS. It is true that the trucker-I do not know the figures, but I would say at least 50 percent of the coal hauled by trucks is hauled by a man who has no interest in the production of coal; he is simply a trucker.

Mr. POTTER. We call him the itinerant trucker; yes, sir.

Mr. JENKINS. I have often thought that that is where the coal operators have made a tremendous mistake. They have allowed so much of their coal to get out into the hands of men who are simply,

you might say peddlers-I do not like to use that word-but there are a lot of those fellows who make it their business to operate in

that way.

Mr. POTTER. That is correct. That is one of the reasons the rail producer has stopped attempting to compete in the truck market. He has been the destruction of his rail market through his own efforts in selling truck coal at the mines.

Mr. JENKINS. I see that you have represented the agency; I wonder if you have made a study of any kind of this problem-and I am serious about that. I see so much of it in my country, fellows coming in from the big cities delivering potatoes and taking back coal. They do not know one kind of coal from another. They get prices down as far as they can, get the best deal they can, take back a ton and a half for a ton, and get their pay largely out of that sort of a transaction.

Mr. POTTER. The answer to that question is that the Coal Division started in August investigating that particular problem you are speaking of, in the State of Ohio.

Mr. JENKINS. What was the result?

Mr. POTTER. I left the Division in October, sir; and I do not know the result.

Mr. JENKINS. Who would know?

Mr. POTTER. I think the Director would know, sir.

Mr. JENKINS. That is all.

Mr. POTTER. It has been suggested that truck mines of small size be eliminated from this particular act. This committee has seen what has happened in the anthracite field with reference to the bootlegging of coal. You have heard testimony here that the small persons should not be regulated, but that they should be able to sell coal at any price.

Let me point out that that has resulted in bootlegging. A producer who can buy coal from a small truck mine, that is paying wages far under the standard of wages that the rail shipper must pay, is able to buy that coal from a trucker, or the truck mine operator, substantially under what he can produce it for.

He then buys that coal, has it transported to the railroad, and then sells it at the market, at the code price. The only person benefiting from that practice is the distributor; the public receives no advantage from that.

Now, with respect to the speed with which petitions and cases are held by the Coal Division and the complaints of the small trucker, I should like to point out to this committee a chronological order of events in the Putnam County, Mo., cases. These are all public records, and are on file with the Coal Division. I have had all of them taken from public records.

1. The minimum price which became effective on October 1, 1940, for coal produced in Putnam County was $2.55 per ton.

2. On or about October 26, 1940, 10 code member producers with mines in Putnam County filed a petition with the Division requesting that the $2.55 price be reduced to $2.30. This petition and the proceeding instituted thereby was assigned docket No. 179. The petition was defective because copies had not been served upon interested persons in accordance with Division rules.

3. The Division, however, in pursuit of its policy of aiding small producers to have their claims properly presented, duplicated the petition and served copies on various interested persons.

4. Petitions claimed the reduction from $2.55 to $2.30 was necessary in order to enable them to compete against other producers located in Adair County, Mo., and in Appanoose County, Iowa. Speedy temporary relief was requested.

5. On October 29, 1940, the Director granted temporary relief, pending final disposition of the case, by reducing the price for all code members in Putnam County from $2.55 to $2.40. A final hearing was set for November 12, 1940, at Moberly, Mo.

6. On November 7, district board No. 15 intervened on behalf of code members of Missouri and requested that the temporary reduction from $2.55 to $2.40 applicable to Putnam County code members be made permanent.

7. On November 8, district board No. 12 intervened on behalf of code members of Iowa and alleged that its code members in Appanoose and Wayne Counties, Iowa, which are adjacent to Putnam County, Mo., were vitally interested in this proceeding.

8. On November 12 and 13 a final hearing was held before a trial examiner at Moberly, Mo. A full opportunity was presented to operators in Putnam County to present their case. The Division attorney present examined the Putnam County operators and assisted them in the presentation of their claim. District board 12 on behalf of Iowa operators vigorously opposed the reduction from $2.55 to $2.30 sought by the Putnam County operators. The transcript of the hearing consisted of approximately 450 pages.

11. Thereupon the Division scheduled an informal conference for December 23, 1940, at Unionville, Mo., on the petition of district board 15. At the conference, district boards 12 and 15, on behalf of Iowa and Missouri producers respectively, concurred in the view that if Putnam County producers were accorded a price lower than $2.30, hundreds of other small producers in Iowa and Missouri would be injured and the price structure generally disrupted. Appearing on behalf of noncode members and several code members in Putnam County, Mr. J. D. Schuster presented the view that the $2.30 price was too high and that Putnam County coal should be priced at $2 per ton. He offered statements of witnesses in support of his position. This occurred on December 23, 1940.

12. Thereafter on December 27, 1940, Mr. J. D. Schuster filed with the Division a petition for reopening the hearing held November 12 and 13 at Moberly, Mo., and requesting that price applicable to Putnam County operators be further reduced to $2 per ton.

13. That hearing has not been reopened because the matter has been fully heard in docket 179, and because Mr. Schuster's views had already been fully presented at the conference held in the related proceeding (docket 492) in Unionville, Mo., on December 23, 1940. That is the dispatch with which cases of that kind were held. Mr. CARLSON. Will the gentleman yield there?

Mr. POTTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. CARLSON. Have you even been in Putnam County, Mo.?
Mr. POTTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. CARLSON. You are familiar with the fields in that section?
Mr. POTTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. CARLSON. I was very much interested in the facts that you are bringing out. I understand you are appearing here as a witness for the Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co. Do you have interests there now?

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »