December 1, 1916] 



SCIENCE 



769 



safety in the coal mines that has come 

 through the combined efforts of the coal 

 companies, the state inspectors, and the 

 Federal Bureau of Mines necessarily in- 

 volves some increase in cost of operation, 

 but the few cents per ton thus added to the 

 cost is a small price to pay for the satis- 

 faction of having the stain of blood re- 

 moved from the coal we buy. That form 

 of social insurance which is now enforced 

 through the workman's compensation laws 

 alone adds from 2 to 5 cents a ton to the 

 cost of coal. 



In the item of transportation perhaps 

 the most promising relief is that of reduc- 

 ing the length of haul. Though many a 

 consumer's preference for coal from a dis- 

 tant field over that from a field nearer 

 home is based on special requirements, the 

 deciding element in the preference of other 

 consumers is simply the price, and this in 

 turn may be largely due to a differential 

 freight scale, which is thus not in the 

 public interest if we admit the premise that 

 it is wasteful to burn coal in hauling coal 

 into coal districts or past such districts, 

 except in so far as quality requirements 

 absolutely demand the long-haul coal. The 

 recent eastward movement of the higher- 

 grade coals, in part caused by the expert 

 demand, may involve some increase in the 

 average length of haul and thus in the 

 transportation cost of coal not exported, 

 but, on the other hand, this enforced adjust- 

 ment may lead some consumers to discover 

 nearer home sources of coal equally well 

 suited to their purposes. 



Reduction in marketing costs is a re- 

 form so close to the consumer that he 

 should be able to find for himself whatever 

 relief is possible. Professor Mead, of the 

 University of Pennsylvania, is authority 

 for the statement that the delivery of coal 

 is costing the dealers 50 cents a ton more 

 than is necessary. 



There only remains, therefore, the first 

 item of all — the value of the coal in the 

 ground, or rather the return which the 

 land-owner is asking for this natural re- 

 source. The fortunate holder of coal land, 

 whether a very human individual or a soul- 

 less corporation or a large trust estate ad- 

 ministered for benevolence only, is likely 

 to endeavor to get all that the traffic will 

 bear. Especially in the possession of a 

 limited resource like anthracite, the tend- 

 ency has been and will continue to be to 

 increase royalties as the years pass, and the 

 only penalty imposed by the state for high 

 royalties seems to be high taxes, which too 

 often, indeed, serve to justify the high re- 

 source cost put upon coal in the ground. 

 Finally, in considering royalty rates or de- 

 pletion charge we must not overlook the 

 interest that accumulates throughout the 

 period between the purchase of the coal 

 land and the removal of the last ton of coal. 



In placing a value upon the Choctaw 

 land some years ago the Geological Survey 

 figured the aggregate royalties at current 

 rates as 160 million dollars, but if that 

 amount of royalty were to be collected 

 through the six or seven centuries re- 

 quired for mining the 2,000 million tons 

 under this land, the present value of the 

 land would be only 6^ million dollars if 

 purchased by the federal government or 

 only 4 million if purchased by the state of 

 Oklahoma, and even less if the project were 

 financed by a corporation that would need 

 to issue 6 per cent, bonds. Such is an illus- 

 tration from actual experience in coal-land 

 valuation — the 4 or 6 million dollars in- 

 vested in these Oklahoma coal lands now 

 would require a final return of 160 million 

 dollars in royalties to balance the account. 



More recently Mr. Cushing, the editor 

 of Black Diamond, has figured the cost of 

 a monopolistic control of the available coal 

 resources east of the Rocky Mountains on 



