coal; they certainly would not want to reduce it below what would be the fair price of transportation.

Mr. RANDELL. But in order to get that means of hoped-for relief, the people in New England and on the Atlantic coast and other parts of the United States, all through the United States, would be subject to buying coal with a tariff of 67 or 74 cents on the ton, and that would be a tremendous expense to the United States, and it would increase the expense of living very much in New England, and the expense of manufacturing plants, and that sort of thing. Have you worked out what the difference would make in that respect?

Mr. MONDELL. Judging from the experience that the people of Montana and eastern Washington had with the coal at $42 a ton, I would say that in the long run the price paid by the consumer was quite as high with the lower tariff, and would be without any tariff at all, as the price he pays now. The Canadian miner having the advantage of the situation, having that advantage, could lower to a point that would drive us out, and still have a profit. The minute we were driven out of the market, then the rate would gradually advance, as it did under the Wilson bill, to a point as high as it was originally, and in any event the reduction that drove us from the northern market was only a reduction of about 15 cents a ton, because we were supplying that market on a very close margin at any rate, and a reduction of 15 cents succeeded in driving us out.

Mr. RANDELL. But what you say applies to only a small portion of the United States, and the effect would be on the whole of the United States?

Mr. MONDELL. Well, I assume that this committee, in discussing this situation, must consider the whole country. Of course it is my duty to present the situation as it relates to my constituents, which I have attempted to do; but, sir, from what I know of the general coal situation, and I have studied it somewhat, I am of the opinion that the present duty is not a burden in any part of the country.

Mr. GAINES. The tariff of 67 cents a long ton on bituminous coal is not very high protection to the coal of the East. I know that the average profit on a ton of coal in the bituminous mines of the East does not amount, one year after another, to 20 cents a ton. In other words, that the producer of coal sells it on a close margin. I have understood that at a distance from the mines the consumers of coal pay a pretty stiff price, but that bears no relation whatever to any enhanced price by reason of the tariff, to the producer of coal. What is the average profit per ton of coal to a coal operator in your section? Mr. MONDELL. I can not say as to that. At one time I managed a coal mine in our State. That was a good many years ago. I severed my connection with that operation when I become a politician, in 1894, or a little before I was elected to Congress. For five years prior to that time our average profit on an output of about 1,500 tons a day was about 11 cents.

Mr. GAINES. A ton?

Mr. MONDELL. Yes, sir; for the five years. There are times when, with a suddenly increased demand, without the opportunity to meet it by opening new mines, the price will be temporarily enhanced to the operator and he will get a very good margin for the time; but as the years come and go, I should say that 25 cents a ton was much above the average profit in our country, and that it was probably

nearer 15 cents; and I know in some cases it has been lower than that, so far as my knowledge goes. I do not pretend to have inside information on the subject, except as I have talked with the managers of mines in the State.

?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Have you any iron mines in that territory Mr. MONDELL. Yes, sir; we have some iron deposits now being worked on a very large scale, and larger deposits that may be―― Mr. UNDERWOOD. What class ore is it?

Mr. MONDELL. It is a rather good Bessemer ore, carrying about somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 per cent.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I would say that would be very good ore.

Mr. MONDELL. It possibly does not run that much. I am not very familiar with the business, as the gentleman is, but possibly the average is not as high as that.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Is it red hematite ore?

Mr. MONDELL. It is a red ore.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In veins or pockets?

Mr. MONDELL. Well, the mines at Sunrise seem to be in a very large pocket or series of pockets.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. You said, I believe, that this coal you have in that country is not fit for coking purposes, but is purely domestic coal?

Mr. MONDELL. We have very little coking coal in Wyoming.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. One of the main reasons that you can not compete with the Canadian coal is that the Canadian coal is a very much superior coal, as I understand it.

Mr. MONDELL. That is one of the factors; that is only one of the factors. The gentleman understands that of two coals one may be superior for a certain purpose and the other command as high a price by reason of its superiority for another purpose.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I understand that.

Mr. MONDELL. For instance, we have some very fine domestic coals in our State, coal that is low in ash, that ignites readily and burns with very little smoke.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. But this superiority of the Canadian coal over your coal is a superiority by nature and not due to artificial conditions, and it is a superiority that never can be overcome, is it not?

Mr. MONDELL. We do not expect to be able to overcome the superiority of the Canadian bituminous coals over our coals for certain purposes.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Therefore the tariff, if it is put on there for that purpose of protecting it against that superiority, must remain there forever, logically?

Mr. MONDELL. I used the argument of the superiority of the Canadian coals for certain purposes, not as one of the controlling arguments for the tariff, but one of the things to be considered when, in addition to that, you take into consideration the fact that they are nearer many markets than our mines are, and the still more important fact that we are paying a very much higher wage than the Canadian mines are paying.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I understand that, but what I mean is this: The development of this country, the development of your coaling interests and railroads, and so forth, could never overcome the natural superiority of the Canadian coals for certain purposes?

Mr. MONDELL. There will be some Canadian coals sold in that northern region without regard to the tariff. That is assuming that the tariff in any event would be a reasonable one. There will still be some Canadian coal sold, because it would meet a certain market; but if the Canadian coal came in without any tariff at all, it would take all of the market, because they not only have a coal that is superior to ours for smelter and steaming purposes, but they also have bituminous coals that are quite as good as ours for domestic purposes.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I would like to ask you this: In the development of your mining industries, as your own coal is not a coking coal, it is absolutely necessary for the development of iron and steel industries in your State to have the Canadian coal?

Mr. BONYNGE. Oh, no. Can you not get those from Colorado, the coking coals?

Mr. MONDELL. It would be impossible to ever import any Canadian coal or coke to Wyoming, to the iron deposits, because of the very great distance. The iron deposits of our State are all in the central and southern portion of the State, and they lie all the way from 500 to 800 miles from the nearest Canadian coals. On the other hand, we have coking coal in Colorado.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. That is about the same distance away, is it not? Mr. UNDERWOOD. I know that there is a great deposit of very good ore in our fields in that vicinity, very good ore.

Mr. MONDELL. There is some coking coal in that vicinity, as the gentleman perhaps knows.

Mr. RANDELL. How much coal does it take to make a ton of coke? Mr. UNDERWOOD. Practically speaking, from one and a quarter to one and a fifth tons.

Mr. MONDELL. And in some cases up to 2 tons. When I was connected with the business I know it used to take 2 tons to make a ton of coke, but our coal was not very low in fixed carbon, and therefore it took more to make a ton of coke.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I recognize that you have freight rates against you that makes it difficult for you to compete; but for the general development of your iron interests and railroad interests, would it not be of more benefit to your people to have a cheap first-rate coal than it would to exclude it? Taking it in the long run, would it not be to the interest of the whole people of your State?

Mr. BONYNGE. Oh, no; just south. Colorado and Wyoming join

each other.

Mr. MONDELL. No; a distance of from 250 to 350 miles. And our iron ore is now being smelted at Pueblo, in Colorado, with Colorado coke, and I assume that the future development of our iron industry will be with the use of Colorado and Utah coal. Utah has a considerable area of good coking coal.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. There are large deposits of iron ore also in Montana, and not very remote from Great Falls, are there not?

Mr. MONDELL. I do not know as to the iron deposits of Montana. I am not informed in regard to them. However, the importation of bituminous coal would not of itself necessarily affect the development of those deposits. That, of course, would be a question of coke.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. That is true, but either coke or coal must come in, to develop those Montana deposits, from the Canadian border.

Mr. MONDELL. The Wyoming coals and some of the Montana coals. are used successfully for all of the metal smelting that is done in Montana.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I understood that; but they can not make coke out of that.

Mr. MONDELL. No; they can not.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And to make iron or steel you have to have coke? Mr. MONDELL. Under present conditions, unless we shall develop electric processes, which we are likely to develop; in which event there are millions of acres of low-grade lignites in the immediate vicinity of those Wyoming and Montana deposits which could be used to great advantage in generating electricity; and the gentleman is aware that in an experimental way, at least, steel has been produced-and the gentlemen of the Geological Survey say has been produced, they believe, on a commercial basis, a basis of commercial economy-with the use of electricity.

Mr. MONDELL. I think not. In the first place, I desire to again emphasize the fact that my argument for the tariff is not based to any considerable extent on the comparative qualities of the coals. That is simply one factor. If our coal were as good as the Montana coal in every respect as a steamer and for smelting purposes, even then we could not compete with the Montana mines, owing to their proximity to the market, and to their lower wage rate, particularly to the latter. So we need protection against the lower wage rate and against the advantage in transportation which the Canadian coals. have; but if we simply took into consideration the condition in the wage scale alone, that in itself is enough to warrant the present duty on coal.

Mr. FORDNEY. You said Montana coal and I think you meant British Columbia coal. You did mean British Columbia coal, did you not, instead of Montana coal?

Mr. MONDELL. I said in speaking of the comparative quality. Mr. FORDNEY. You said Montana and I think you meant British Columbia.

Mr. MONDELL. My comparisons are all of Montana and Wyoming coals with Canadian coal.

Mr. BONYNGE. How does the Colorado coal compare with the Canadian coal?

Mr. MONDELL. Colorado has some coal as good as the best in the Crows Nest Pass regions. Colorado has all grades of coal, from the very low-grade lignite to a very excellent grade of semianthracite coal.

Mr. BONYNGE. You can get your supply of that class of coal from Colorado, then?

Mr. MONDELL. Yes; we can.

Mr. BONYNGE. Better than you could from Canada?

Mr. MONDELL. Well, with a haul of less than half the distance, so far as we are concerned in Wyoming.

STATEMENT OF W. J. CARNEY, OF CHICAGO, ILL.

(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.)

Mr. CARNEY. I do not think I can add to what Mr. Mondell has said, except that we are now suffering from this Canadian coal com

ing into our territory. Our mines are only running four or five days a week.

Mr. GAINES. Where is your mine?

Mr. CARNEY. At Sheridan, Wyo.-near Sheridan, Wyo. During the summer we only ran three or four days. Our trade has fallen off in Washington, where we shipped last year large quantities of our coal; it has fallen off 25 per cent.

The CHAIRMAN. Because the Canadian coal is better?

Mr. CARNEY. Because this Canadian coal is coming in there The CHAIRMAN. Because it is a better coal; is that the reason? Mr. CARNEY. That is the reason, and the less freight, of course, in competition with us.

The CHAIRMAN. How much coal do you mine in Wyoming, altogether?

Mr. CARNEY. Last year the output, I believe, was six or seven million tons.

The CHAIRMAN. And how much was imported into Wyoming from Canada?

Mr. CARNEY. As I heard Mr. Mondell say, something like 410,000 tons into Montana and Washington.

Mr. FORDNEY. Mr. Chairman, the committee has been wanting some information on lumber trusts. Mr. Carney is one of the heaviest lumber men in the country.

The CHAIRMAN. Do not try to open up the lumber question again. Mr. FORDNEY. He is one of the largest lumber men in the country, and I thought that probably some of the members of the committee would like to ask him some questions in regard to the lumber trust.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think we want to go into that. We will excuse the witness now, and then if Mr. Fordney wants to recall him to ask him anything about lumber, he can do so.

Mr. FORDNEY. I have not asked to hear him in regard to that.

Mr. MONDELL. Mr. Holbrook and Mr. Gridley have informed me that in view of the considerable number of gentlemen who desire to be heard by the committee, they do not care to add anything to what I have stated in regard to the coal interests.

(Mr. Mondell filed the following papers:)

Coal production in States and Territories west of the Mississippi River in 1907, in short tons.