Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the company got off the train. These men did not know anything about the strike situation in Hancock County. The men who had crossed the river and met the train informed them of the strike and agreed to pay their way back to their original place of embarkation. They showed that in the court, and the court found every one of those men guilty of violating a labor injunction. That has been the kind of situation these men have had to contend with. They would run armored trains into other mining camps, and they have shot men down because of labor troubles and labor disputes.

Senator NEELY. Is it not a fact that before the adoption of the code the coal-mining industry in your district, the First District of West Virginia, was demoralized, and that the operators generally were in the hands of receivers or trustees in bankruptcy, and miners were on the verge of starvation?

Representative RAMSAY. That is the point I am trying to bring out. That is exactly correct. I think it was so all over the State, not only in the First District, but everywhere.

I believe, as I say, that the code has greatly removed a lot of our trouble. Of course, not all these men are at work, but I believe more of them are at work in West Virginia today than have been within the last 10 years, not since 1929, but the last 10 years; and they are receiving better pay and their working conditions are better. I feel that not only the men themselves, but the operators of the coal companies want this Congress to do something to protect that coal business.

Indeed I believe that any legislator would be derelict in his duty and unmindful of his responsibilities to the people he represented if he would not seek to enact some measure that would prevent again the old cutthroat system of price cutting in the coal business.

I remember discussing the price of coal in 1932, with Mr. Koch, who was one of the receivers of the Consolidated Coal Co. in West Virginia, and he informed me that the day before 30 cars of West Virginia coal had been sold on the railroad cars in the city of Cleveland for 89 cents a ton.

While I am not exactly familiar with the railroad rate of shipments from any point in West Virginia to Cleveland, I believe this must have been really below the price of railroad freight.

Senator DAVIS. I understand 89 cents was a very good price. I have heard of its being sold at as low as 40 cents.

Representative RAMSAY. I don't see how that would be possible. It wouldn't half pay the freight for any distance.

Senator DAVIS. The unfortunate thing about it, Mr. Congressman, is that the man who brought the coal to use it for domestic purposes or manufacturing purposes did not get the benefit of that price.

Representative RAMSAY. I don't know, of course. Mr. Koch just told me that. I asked him how he was getting along with the receivership, and he told me of the chaotic condition of the coal business, and that he didn't see how it was going to work out or how there could possibly be any hope of restoration. He was an experienced coal man, and he was discouraged and thought there was no hope of restoring to prosperity the coal business of that State. I understand the receivership has been removed since the code became effective. I am not sure of that, but that is what I have heard. You probably know a good deal more about that than I do.

I only relate this to show the chaotic condition the coal business had reached in the United States in the year 1932. In fact, the coal business in the United States was the first one to feel the effects of overproduction and price cutting after the war.

I have heard on eminent authority that an overproduction of at least 2 percent of coal demoralized the industry, while an underproduction of 2 percent causes excessive rates to be charged to the consumer. That is a remarkable thing. Two percent in any other business would not have much effect; but if you produce 2 percent more coal than you consume the result is this cut-throat competition, and every time the operator cuts the price, of course, he must cut the wage of the miner. There isn't anybody he can cut but the miner. As a consequence, whenever the price of coal is cut the wage of the miner is reduced, and the miner is the man who suffers. While such low percentages do not affect the general run of trade and commerce, it does have this effect on the coal business.

Senator NEELY. You referred to a surplus production of 2 percent. Is it not a fact that the producing capacity of the coal industry of the United States at the present time exceeds the power of consumption by more than 40 percent?

Representative RAMSAY. I imagine that is a correct statement, and I think that clearly demonstrates the necessity for the passage of some such law as this.

Senator Davis, a member of your committee, is entirely familiar with these conditions. I could not add anything, I am sure, that would enlighten him on this subject. He knows more about it than any of us.

Our experience in the coal business under the control of the codes has proven conclusively that the bill which this committee is now determining is of great necessity to this industry, and this bill or some relief must be enacted at this session of Congress.

I believe that the enactment of this bill is only one way that the industry can be stabilized, and that is by the use of the quota and the minimum price. The quota or amount each mine will be permitted to produce is determined by taking the average production of each mine since 1918 until 1934; when these are added the proportion of each mine in the grand total is ascertained. This will be its quota for the future.

These methods of control, it is interesting to note, are employed in England; and the measures now under consideration are modeled somewhat after the British coal-mine legislation.

The Secretary of Mines of Great Britain has reported that the decline in coal prices at the pit mouth, which began in 1930, was arrested; and that prices, as a whole, were maintained at about the same level during 1930, in striking contrast with the fall in all other commodity prices.

Senator DAVIS. The Minister of Labor of New South Wales told me when he was visiting in this country that their government would not permit the operation of any mines in New South Wales that would increase the production, and if any did open up they would have to get miners who were already employed to open them up, so they would not make more unemployment than they really

had.

Representative RAMSAY. I understand the bill you have here proposes that you establish these quotas to apply to every man that was in the business during that period of time; that these quotas can be sold, just like a seat in the stock exchange, and therefore there will be no more mines opened. If the Consolidated Coal Co., for example, wants more production, they will buy quotas of other people, which have been established by the board or the commission that is set up under this bill. Is that not correct?

Senator DAVIS. I do not quite understand it that way.

Representative RAMSAY. That was my understanding of how it would operate, and, therefore, there would not be any new mines opened; that there would be no new production other than that established by the board in the establishment of the quotas.

Senator NEELY. The important fact in relation to this matter, regardless of how it is done, is the accomplishment of the control of production and the avoidance of overproduction.

Representative RAMSAY. That is precisely what I wanted to bring

out.

Then, again, the bill legalizes the rights of employees to form protective unions, bargain collectively, to have check-weighmen, and provides that in determining the minimum prices, reasonable living wages for the workers shall be included.

In the coal industry, so far as the miners or employees themselves are concerned, this is a wonderful step. The miners of West Virginia have been deviled not only by that proposition but by the company stores which they had years ago nearly everywhere. They would give a miner a check like a meal ticket. They would give a miner a $5 check, or a $10 check, and he would go to the store and they would punch out of the check the amount he bought, and he would pay sometimes as high as three times the price he could buy the article for in the open market. I can remember in the mines in Hancock County when they only had a pay day once a year; that is, they only settled up once a year. They would give the miners these checks to go to the store, and on the Fourth of July they would try to sweeten it up a little by giving him perhaps $5 for the Fourth, and maybe the same amount for Christmas. Then they would have a settlement at the end of the year, and at that time he always owed the company. As a consequence, he never could move away from the community, and they kept him there practically as a chattel or slave. I am not overdrawing the picture. That is the truth.

Senator DAVIS. That is somewhat like they used to do in western Pennsylvania, and I heard of one case where they had a sign up, "Today is pay day ", and some wag came along and wrote "If you get it."

Representative RAMSAY. The object of the bill is to create a level of prices that will give a fair wage and a fair profit. We cannot maintain a fair price if we insist on flooding the market with more coal than can be consumed. If we even try to dump 5 percent more coal on the market than can be consumed, the whole price structure collapses, and when price collapses, wages collapse, because labor is 70 percent of the cost, and the operator has no other way to shave his price than to take it out of wages.

119739-35--8

In this respect coal mining is far more dependent on a fair price of the product than any other manufacture. Because in manufacturing as a whole, salaries and wages are but 25 percent of the cost. So the first step in the coal business, in order to pay decent wages and to give to the operator a fair profit, is to adjust production to the obvious limitations of demand. Of course, any plan giving operators production quotas to be applied in the United States, would have to conform to American conditions. It would have to be flexible so as to fit the varying needs of the different districts.

To prevent the demoralization of the coal business again to its low standards of 1931 and 1932, and to prevent the return of the yellowdog contract and the starvation wages for the men employed in the coal business, and to gain a fair return for the operator and enable him to pay fair wages to his working men, we must face the problem of the supply of coal in America.

I believe the bill before the committee at the present time will perform these functions, and while it is true that some coal operators object to this bill, or to any bill that they in any way believe is a control, or check on their business, I do not believe it is the attitude of many of them. In my section of the State I think a large preponderance of the operators themselves are in favor of the code or in favor of some measure that will control the output and regulate the price and sale of coal. I think that is a fair statement. The manufacturers themselves are heartily in favor of it.

It is not the intent of this bill, as I understand, to place the Government in control of the coal business, but sets up machinery so that the coal business can control itself and make it a profitable business and remove it from the realm of bankruptcy, shut-downs, strikes, and lockouts, and give to the coal business machinery that will enable it to continuously operate successfully. I, therefore, unhesitatingly approve the measure and urge its passage by the Congress.

I have heard some question raised that the drawback or provision to assess a tax of 25 percent on the coal at the mine, and then give 99 percent to those who comply with the terms of the bill, is unconstitutional.

Senator DAVIS. Judge Warrum said the other day when he was making his statement that the 1 percent would be sufficient to pay all the costs of administering the act. He said it would raise a million and three-quarters under the present production of coal.

Representative RAMSAY. I think that provision is absolutely necessary, because otherwise you will only be able to reach about 75 percent of the coal that is produced. Twenty-five percent is intrastate, and you will not be able to reach it without that provision.

That contention I do not believe to be sound, as our tariff laws and shipping bills from the early history of our country have contained such drawbacks, which have been maintained and upheld by our courts. I believe to make this bill workable it is absolutely necessary that the tax provision on the sale of the coal at the mine must be provided in the bill and maintained. Otherwise the licensee method would only reach about 75 percent of the American coal producers who are engaged in interstate commerce, while the other 25 percent would remain beyond the reach of the license method because of only operating intrastate.

For the reasons given I sincerely hope that this bill will not only be reported by the committee but will pass both Houses of Congress at an early date.

Senator MINTON. Do you think that 25 percent that is required would tend to handicap the operators of mines who did not have a substantial working capital, if they had to pay the 25 cents, as the bill says, monthly in each calendar month on or before the first business day of the second succeeding month?

Representative RAMSAY. I don't see how that could handicap them, when they are going to get 99 percent of it back.

Senator MINTON. Do you understand they will have to put up that money?

Representative RAMSAY. Yes; that is true.

Senator MINTON. At least, for the time they have parted with that money, they are going to have to have that much working capital in order to operate.

Representative RAMSAY. Yes; but I wouldn't think there would be any difficulty in securing it under a situation like that. Bankers, or almost anyone, would readily lend a man money and take the security of the drawback on that kind of proposition. I don't see how that would hurt. It might inconvenience some who did not have the money, but I don't see how it could be a detriment or injury to anyone.

Senator MINTON. At least, it would be necessary that they should provide themselves with sufficient working capital to take care of that?

Representative RAMSAY. That is true, but I do not see where that is going to do any great amount of harm. That seems to be the only provision that will absolutely secure 100 percent compliance with this law, if you pass it, or 100 percent enforcement of it. The license will not do it, because that will not reach the men who only mine locally. Some of those mines are quite large. There is one right across the river from me at Steubenville, Ohio. I don't think they sell a ton outside of Steubenville. It is a fairly large property, and produces fine coal, and they can dispose of all of it in their own town for domestic consumption. You would not be able to reach a mine like that without this provision. That is the reason I would support that so strongly. Otherwise, I would say that the license would be sufficient, but the license will not reach cases of that kind.

Senator MINTON. It would not reach it because it is not in commerce?

They do not have to do and haul the coal away. operate in that fashion,

Representative RAMSAY. That is right. anything. People come right to the shaft Senator MINTON. If they continue to wouldn't this bill reach them, since it is bottomed upon the theory that it is in commerce?

Representative RAMSAY. Yes; I think that you could reach them with this bill.

Senator NEELY. Who owns that particular mine?
Representative RAMSAY. Thomas Sherwood (?).

Senator DAVIS. Is that what is termed a "captive mine "?

« AnteriorContinuar »