STATE COALMINES

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4304, 13 March 1901, Page 6

STATE COALMINES

MR SEDDON’S PROPOSAL. COMMENTS OF THE AUSTRALIAN PRESS. SYDNEY, March 12. The “Sydney Herald,” com menting on Mr Seddon’s proposal for.r national coalmine, says that were nationalisation of mines to become a recognised thing, private enterprise would • a CourSo ' ru ined. The Government, influenced by political pressure, would pay wages which no private owner could hope to pay. The “Herald” concludes:—“The pro pounder of the scheme does not seem tc understand that there is no particular virtue in Government management. Taxpayers and consumers being one and the same, there would be no saving in havig money taken out of one pocket and put into the other.” Tho “Daily Telegraph,” dealing with the same subject, takes it that the proposal is only to provide under State control coal for State use; but if producing for the general market is undertaken the Government can heat all competitors, even though it be at the cost of the taxpayers in general. The “Telegraph” approves providing a State supply, but considers that the wider scheme has little to commend it. THE PREMIER’S REJOINDER TO MR BROWN. Mr Seddon replied yesterday to the statements made to a representative of the “New Zealand Times” by Mr Samuel Brown and other coal merchants in regard to the Premier’s proposal to establish a State coalmine. He thinks they have completely failed to establish their case. . The Premier strongly combated the theory of Mr Brown that the State could not’ conduct a business as cheaply as the private individual. Several large departments, he said, were new being administered by the State, and were run as cheaply as private enterprise could rue them. Privately-owned railways, he declared, wero not as a rule worked as well as those belonging to the State, nor were their profits so large. Moreover, Mr Brown, in saying that those employed in State concerns did not care a rap, and were mainly concerned to keep their billets, had made an accusation as unfounded as it was cruel. Mr Seddon could not understand how it was that consumers in Wellington were paying so much for their coal. The hewers at Westport were paid 2s lOd per ton, while the railway freight from the mine to the wharf was 2s per ton. This made a total of 4s lOd per ton. The price of the coal on hoard the ship when she left Westport was 10s, of which 5s 2d apparently went to the coal company, and yet the retail price in Wellington was 38s and 40s. He would like to know how this enormous difference was made up. In fact, in one case not far from Wellington terrace a gentleman was actually charged 50s a ton. It was true that the coal had to bo delivered to retail customers living some distance from the centre of the city, but even this failed to account for the high tariff. There were many cases in which the coal had to he sent only, short distances, but nevertheless the high rates were maintained.

■ Mr Soddon denied that the coal supplied to the Railway Department at from 19s to 21s per ton was unscreened. The tenders accepted by the department were for screened coal at the following rates: —Brunner Company, 18s per ton ; Blackball Company, ISs 6d; Westport Company, 21s 6d. He repeated that if the Railway Department could get screened coal at those rates, there was no reason why the Wellington public should pay such high prices. . Incidentally, Mr Seddon pointed out that the coal-hewers wore paid at rates fixed un,der the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and the Government wouh» have to pay the same rates a® the present companies. Qn. the P-wWeqL of freight**, the Premier said, that the Union Company charged tho Westport Coal Company .1» 8d per ton tcv Wellington, but outside stiipppi's hiul tc> pay ds per ton, A BRIJAD - WINNER’S APPRECIATION, MR SAMUEL BROWN IN REPLY. Writing on the coal question, t “A Breadwinner” says s—The trade* unionists of Wellington and Mr Allan Orr are to bo.congratulated on drawing the attention of tho Premier to this iniportnut matter. The Premier’s attitude as regards this question is also worthy of the greatest praise, and it is to be hoped that before long the Government will remove the burden that now presses eo heavily upon the community, and more especially upon the /small wageearners. To think that, while coql can he obtained to work the railways for 18s to 21s pei’ ton; the general coasnmor is charged close upon £2. is calculated to',create'an intense feeling of indignation; and any reform which tends to. remove this evil is certain to inept, with tho hearty approval - of very many people. What. I most particularly ■v/ish to observe is the need there is of drawing attention to. the, attempt that is now being made to crush the poorest pf the community. However honest cr worthy a working man-may i bo, he is to be deprived-of fuel, should he have the misfortune to be thrown out of work for a few weeks, and be unable to pay cash there and then. A more callous proposal I have not heard tell of-during my little experience; and therefore, hasten to express the pleasure I feel *on hearing that the Government intends taking steps to place this necessary aiticle within the reach of all, at a price considerably less than is charged at the present time. Mr Samuel Brown, upon whose statements we commented in yesterday’s issue of the “Tinjes,” writes as followsI cake it very unkind of the editor that, after I had furnished his reporter with a lot of good “copy,” he should use me as a peg,for his theories. 1 simply say that no State can run commercial enterprises as cheaply or as well as private enterprise. I don’t say they can’t run a coal mine or a butcher’s, grocer’s, or drapery .business, or a newspaper; but as proof of my contention that private enterprise is better than Government control, I would ask you to compare tho “New Zealand Times” of to-day with the same paper of some ten rears j ago, under Government control. It was then known as “the rag,” “the misleading morning journal;’’ a paper that lost money'and was without influence.: Compare it with the well-man-aged, well-edited, enterprising “New Zealand Times” which to-day is circulated all over the colony. If you require a more pertinent ease than this, I must give it up in despair. I am well aware that there lias been for several years a wave of opinion for almost everything to be done by either Government or the municipality. In connection with this I was struck by the opinion expressed some years ago by Sir W. Webster, the Attorney-General for Gre’t Britain. His words were to the effect that in the municipalisation of different things the ratepayers had ultimately to pay for more - than they got. What seems to prove the correctness of the opinion expressed is

;ivcn by Professor Allen, from evidence tefore the British Parliamentary Comiiittoo on municipal trading. .Says Mr Allen:—The municipal rates have in•reased since 1892 (that since the expanion of municipal trading) from £2 to £2 is 6d per capita in London, and from 17s !d to £1 Os 9d outside of London. The otal for England and Wales has increased from £1 Os 7d to £1 4s 6d ; the ate per pound on ratable value has likcA’ise increased from fivepence to sixpence per pound in the Kingdom.