THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, JULY I4, 1919. COAL AND INDUSTRY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17212, 14 July 1919, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, JULY 14, 1919. COAL AND INDUSTRY.

■ - ——;—-—. It is no exaggeration to say that crisis in the fate of British industr has been produced by the propose to raise the selling price of coal fa 6s a ton. Britain Iks grown pro! perous on cheap coal. Dear cos threatens her exports and imports her commerce and industry, even he food. Export coal is the foun datiou of the carrying trade. I formed before the war between 7 and 80 per cent, of the total weigh of cargoes leaving the United King dora for foreign countries. It pro vided shipping with an ideal out ward cargo, which paid the cost o: the voyage one way. If it is cut of the food and raw materials carrlec to Britain will in great measure hav< to bear the cost of the double voy age. This is what Sir Joscpr Maclay meant when he said that or her coal exports the whole of Bri tain's shipping and financial positioi depends. The influence of the export trade is so great that it extendi back even to the mine. This point was indicated as long ago as 1905 bj the Royal Commission on Coal Sup plies, which found that the largci output rendered possible by exports enabled collieries to be worked regularly and at full capacity, and thus made for lower cost of production. If the incroase of 6s a ton is allowed to affect export coal the trade will be seriously threatened. The United States is already competing successfully for South American and European markets, ind as the proposed increase in the price of British coal is almost equal » the Atlantic freight, America will obviously bo placed in a much stronger position. It is possible to exclude export coal from the range if the increase, and something of he kind is apparently contemilated by the Government, but there lire limits to the extent to which such coal can be subsidised at the expense of domestic consumers. \part altogether from the question >f price there is a danger that Britain may have little coal available or foreign markets. The mineiwners who sat on the recent Royal Commission recorded their opinion hat a reduction of the output by ►0,000,000 tons would involve the sntire cessation of the export of :oal, and make a serious shortage in lome supplies. The claim which las been conceded to the miners is louble-barrelled, increasing wages tnd shortening hours. It is certain •o cause a temporary fall in production, but by how much and for how ong can only be a matter for specuation. So serious a step ; as raising the >rice of coal by 30 per cent, appears o warrant a fuller explanation than he Government has yet given. The itatement by the Board of Trade, mblisbsd in this issue, is illuminatng as far as it goes, but it does lot go far enough. It shows that he output for the next twelve nonths is estimated at 217,000,000 ons, and that after excluding the :onsuinption at collieries and ranker and export coal, there renain 161,000,000 tons to bear 'the :ost of the improvement in miners' sonditions. This makes out a supericial case for passing on 6s a ton, iut the astonishing feature is that Mr. Justice Sankey, whose report was adopted by the Government, was sanguine that by limiting )wners' profits to Is 2d a ton and ntroducing economies there need bo 10 increase in price. Owners say ;heir profits are still fixed as recomnended, and yet this alarming inirease in cost is announced as instable. It is apparent that there s a serious discrepancy somewhere, indeed it appears highly improbable hat the Government will persist in ts present intention. Hardly an ndustry in the country will escape [erious inconvenience if 6s is added o every ton of coal, and some will >e almost paralysed. The cost of transport in all its forms will rise, )articularly on the railways, which ire now being run at a considerable loss to the State. This will 'eact on all industries. It takes our tons of coal to manufacture one on of steel, consequently the price >f steel must advance by at .least 51 4s a ton. ;. Blast furnaces, engileering shop? and shipbuilding -ards will sutler most, but there is io industry which at this critical ieriod of reconstruction will not be eriously handicapped in competiion for the world's markets. One of the most serious features f the British coal position is the onstant decrease in the ou' put of he individual worker. The. comarison with the American minor stablishcd in to-day's cables is by o means exaggerated. According o an American authority the anual production per person employed ii American mines rose between 897 and 1912 from 494 to 660 tons. nd in British mines fell from 298 o 244 tons. Almost every increase ii wages gained by the British liner has lowered his output, and it i highly improbable that the preent concession in hours and wages rill have any other result. It is true i he miner in America has certain atural advantages. The industr. , here is of comparatively recent de-1 elopment, operations are. therefore, [ arried on at a lesser depth, thicker j earns are still being worked, and the i oal beds are, in most cases hori- j ontal instead of being inclined, as i Europe. It is true also that j reater care is taken of the life of! he. British miner than of the Amerian. and this adds to the cost of roduction. But in the main the' imerican output is greater because j he miners do not artificially restrict. roduction and because larger cars ' r tubs are used to remove the coal rom the working face to the bottom f the shaft, and more use is made f mechanical coal cutters and eoneyors in the mine. British owners eport that miners still have a pretdice against machinery, their preldice against long hour? has re ***/&% been demonstrated, and.

much time is lost ; through avoidable absenteeism. ;; : . The miner cannot have it both ways. • He cannot have high wages and a " go-slow" policy at the same time. 'Ho cannot hopo to increase his earnings without increasing his efficiency, either by facilitating the introduction of more machinery or by working harder when he is in the mine. It is a proposition which can be applied to every industry in every country. To earn more the worker must produce more. The individual output of coal in Australia and New Zealand is relatively high. In New South Wales it was 657 tons annually for each person employed underground during the decade ended 1914. In New Zealand it has ranged from 590 tons in 1913 to 750 tons in 1916, and 703 tons last year. This is a creditable record, but miners who aspire to better their economic conditions should aim at still better returns. To attempt to decrease output and increase wages at the same time is a counsel of folly, which has no logical ending other than the rain of all industries, including that of coal production. Such a calamity cannot be the aim of any miner who is either patriotic or intelligent.