While we have no figures for the year 1935 for the northern fields, based upon tonnage produced per man per day, as shown by data compiled by the National Recovery Administrator for those fields, the differential in earnings of piece workers at the present time, as between West Virginia and the other districts, has increased an additional 50 cents per day. Therefore, in order to move our fine sizes or slack coal it is often necessary for us to dispose of it at a price below the cost of production and depend upon the prices obtained for the prepared sizes to bring the average realization for all sizes up to the cost of production.

For the reasons above stated, we believe that a minimum price based upon cost of production for all sizes of coal is not practicable and that there should be some method whereby the price can be based upon quality, cost at point of consumption and other competitive factors, regardless of cost of production. We believe this can be accomplished by providing that either the district boards or marketing agencies for one or more districts shall fix a minimum and maximum price for each size of coal produced at each mine on the basis of quality and competitive marketing conditions, regardless of cost of production so long as the total realization for all grades sold within a district shall equal the average cost of production for the district, with similar enforcement features with reference to taxes, and so forth, as are contained in the proposed bill.

The Commission should then have the power to determine whether or not the prices so fixed by each district are fair in relation to each other, with authority to order such changes in price as are necessary to allow the coal to move in the market in proportion to the allotment made for each district.

We believe that any attempt to allocate tonnage either between various districts, or between mines within a district, based upon long experience, will cause hardships both between and within districts. The bill as proposed would result in a switch of tonnage between various districts of approximately 30 million tons, or 8.4 percent. If the period since 1923 is considered instead of 1918, the switch in tonnage will amount to approximately 21 million tons, or a switch or 6 percent. If experience since 1928 is used it would further reduce the switch to approximately 11 million tons or 3 percent. In our Williamson Field the bill as proposed would reduce our tonnage in comparison with that produced in 1934, approximately 660,000 tons or approximately 9 percent. This would be in addition to a loss already

sustained in 1934 under 1933 of approximately 4 percent. We, therefore, believe that any proration of tonnage should not consider experience over a longer period than 10 years.

In prorating between mines within the various districts, any proration based on past experience computed on tonnage actually shipped will cause even wider variations in tonnage than between districts.

In our Williamson field if the proposed bill had been in effect in 1934 and we apply the proposed 5-year method in allocating between mines within our district to that year, a comparison of the tonnage allotted and the tonnage actually shipped would have been as follows:

We therefore believe that in prorating tonnage between mines within the district, the capacity of the mines should be considered and not tonnage over any given number of years. We suggest this be done by each company selecting any two years it chooses out of the past 5 years and divide that tonnage produced during those years by the number of days the mine operated, thus getting the capacity of the plant. Then use that daily capacity as the basis for determining the percentage of total tonnage in the district to which the plant is entitled. This will more nearly assure equal operating time as between the various mines, which we are trying to accomplish, than any other method which might be used. In addition, the district boards should be authorized to further adjust tonnages for such mines as are becoming depleted, new mines which have not been in operation for a period of 5 years, and mines which have been only partially operated during that period.

Under the proposed bill our Williamson district would be partially in District No. 5 and partially in District No. 7. In some instances the mine being operated by some companies would be in District No. 7, while the tipple would be located in District No. 5. District No. 5 takes in what is known as the "Virginia field."

A very large portion of the tonnage from that field moves east and south, while a large percentage of the tonnage from the Williamson, Logan, and Kanawha fields moves west and north, and these two areas are not highly competitive for the bulk of their respective ton

nages. We therefore suggest that District No. 5 be changed to
include the present districts of Kanawha, Logan, and Williamson, and
read as follows:

All of the coal-producing counties in West Virginia, not included in Districts
Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and not including areas and operations producing smokeless or
low volatile coal; Buchanan County, Virginia; and areas and operations in Martin
and Pike Counties, Kentucky, from which coal is shipped over the Norfolk &
Western Railway.

We propose that instead of the description of District 5 as it now
appears in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to leave these exhibits with the com-
mittee.

(The tables presented by Mr. Woods are as follows:)

Statement by Operators' Association of Williamson Field showing proposed pro-
ration of tonnage in Williamson district under provisions of Guffey bill, and effect
on distribution of tonnage, if this bill had been in effect during year 1934

Did not operate in 1931.

Operated part of year 1933 and year 1934.

Operated only in 1930.

1 Operated only part of 1933 and year 1934.

Operated during year 1930, part of 1931, and reopened in December 1934.

Did not operate in 1933. Tonnage for McDowell County and Buchanan County.
7 Operated only during 1930 and 1931.

Operated in 1930 and 1931, reopened latter part of 1934.

Statement by Operators' Association of Williamson Field showing proposed proration of tonnage in Williamson district under provisions of Guffey bill, and effect on distribution of tonnage, if this bill had been in effect during year 1934-Contd.

12 Operated only in 1934. Tonnage shown for Buchanan Collieries (*), 1,410, included with Virginia Lee. 13 Did not operate in 1932 and part of 1931 and 1933.

NOTE.-353,352 tons included above are for mines which are worked out and not operating. This is about 4.11 percent of total percentage, or 254,012 tons included in the tonnage for 1934 based on the mean average.

STATEMENT OF ROLLA D. CAMPBELL, HUNTINGTON, W. Va.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is Rolla D. Campbell; I live in Huntington, W. Va. I am an attorney at law in active practice. I came here as a representative of some landholding interests in Mingo, Logan, and Boone Counties, W. Va. They are the Dingess-Run Coal Co., which owns approximately 27,000 acres on Dingess Run and Rum Creek in Logan County, most of which is leased to commercial operators, one mine, a captive mine, being leased to the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.; also the Cole & Crane Real Estate Trust, which owns between 35,000 and 40,000 acres of lands in Mingo, Noone, and Logan Counties, practically all of which is leased.

The production from these lands is approximately 3%1⁄2 million tons and represents about a third of the entire production from Logan County.

I also speak for the Chamber of Commerce of Huntington, W. Va., of which I happen to be a director, and for the people in that community who feel that they will be adversely affected by this bill.

The grounds for opposition are: First, that the bill is unconstitutional; second, that it is not a desirable measure even if it were legal; third, that it is utterly impractical as applied to the factual background of the industry; and, fourth, that the implications of this legislature are such that it deserves opposition whatever other merits. it might have.

I want to speak first about the constitutionality of the measure; and, before I get into the discussion of constitutional principles, I want to say that I think the legality or constitutionality thereof has an exceedingly practical aspect. Mr. Francis touched upon that subject in the close of his talk this morning.

The coal industry cannot function in an atmosphere of illegality. We have had a great deal of difficulty in that respect under code operation. Some groups who are now proponents of this bill have openly stated at meetings of operators with the miners and in public meetings before the N. R. A., and it is no secret that they think control of the industry is completely beyond the constitutional powers of Congress. That feeling is widespread throughout legal circles which advise the coal industry.

We saw that last fall when the gold cases were admitted to review by the Supreme Court. Immediately business became restless. Businessmen did not know what was going to take place, and whatever recovery there might have been under way at the time practically stopped and business marked time.

Whatever is done here in a legislative way should be based on a very sound constitutional basis; and it should not after enacement be subject to criticism, to doubts, and to the statement that we hear that "I will meet you on the court house steps.'

This bill has a history. I assume that the chairman is familiar with the history behind this bill. I doubt if Senator Minton is.

In 1932 a bill was introduced in Congress, called the Davis-Kelly bill, and extensive hearings were held upon that bill. The chairman of this committee has before him the records made at that time. The hearing was held before a subcommittee of the Senate Mines and Mining Committee.

The theory of that bill was that Congress could deny any Statechartered corporation the right to engage in interstate commerce; and, having that power, so the proponents said, it, therefore, could name the conditions upon which those corporations could be admitted to engage in interstate commerce; and among those conditions would be that they would have to conform to certain regulations as to labor, as to the price of the commodity, and matters of that sort.

That bill was based upon an opinion written by a Washington lawyer named Edmund D. Campbell who prepared it at the instance of the Bituminous Coal Commission. Judge Warrum, one of the proponents of the Davis-Kelly bill, supported that theory and presented arguments along with Mr. Campbell as to why it was a good one.

Now, you will find Mr. Campbell's statement with respect to that bill in volume I at pages 51 and 84, and Judge Warrum's testimony and opinion in volume I at page 58 and volume II at page 1228. Elaborate arguments and briefs were made and filed at those hearings; and I think it would be well to recite who appeared in opposition to that bill and whom they represented, because it will indicate to you how the counsel for the industry felt about this particular measure.

Mr. E. L. Greever appeared as counsel for the National Coal Association. His testimony and opinions are found in volume II, pages 406, 418, and 1169. H. D. Rummel, Esq., of Charleston, W. Va., appeared for the National Coal Association. His testimony is in volume I, page 250. Mr. A. L. Liveright, of Pennsylvania, appeared