Secretary DAVIS. Well, I hope you are not putting me in the position that I am advocating Government ownership. Senator GoFF. Oh, no; I am not putting you in that position. I am putting you in the position of answering, in view of your wide experience with all these industries, the question whether practically, to carry out the matters propounded to you, would or would not, in its essential conslusions, involve the Government control of the mines? Secretary DAVIS. No; I would not think so. Senator GOFF. You would not? Secretary DAVIS. No; not necessarily so, if we had voluntary consolidations. As it is now you will admit to me, Senator, that poverty is stalking in the homes of the bituminous-coal fields in many sections of our country. Senator GOFF. I admit that. Secretary DAVIS. I would rather have consolidations with prosperity than to have this paralyzing condition that is now ging on, and, consequently, poverty. Senator GoFF. I agree to that; and my question is directed toward receiving from you or from your department, if you care to contribute it, or if you think it proper so to do, a solution of this problem, after you take the advice of your legal department, if you feel that you can consistently do so. I think that this committee wants all the light that it can obtain. Secretary DAVIS. I think that this committee should ask the advice of the Attorney General of the United States; he is the one to submit a legal question of that kind to, and if you submit it to him I am sure he would be glad to answer. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask you this question, Mr. Secretary: If the one solution of the problem is consolidation-if that be the solution-and I am not saying it is or is not; but if it be the one solution, then consolidation must be effected through voluntary action, or forcibly; if those interested in the industry do not take voluntary action, and if consolidation is the sole desideratum, then it must be done by Government control, if consolidation is essential. Secretary DAVIS. Well, I might answer that by saying that the way to consolidate is to consolidate. The CHAIRMAN. Well, if they do not do it. Secretary DAVIS. Then that is a question we have to meet when it arises. The CHAIRMAN. We are pretty close to it now. Now I want to ask you this: Have you, or those under you, considered this question-to take the brake off my own question, take the price of a ton of coal, what I have to pay to get a ton of coal delivered to my home in Washington City, have you figured what percentage the miner gets, and what percentage the railroad gets Secretary DAVIS (interposing). I think we can get that from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CHAIRMAN. And what percentage the middleman gets. Secretary DAVIS. You can get that from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Had I known you were going to ask that, I could have had it with me. Senator WHEELER. Could you give us that? Secretary DAVIS. Yes; and I think the Department of Commerce has it also. The CHAIRMAN. I would like very much to have that. Senator SMITH. You want the steps from what the miner gets, and the incidental steps from what the miner gets to the ultimate consumer, showing what each individual engaged in handling the coal gets until it arrives at the ultimate consumer? Secretary DAVIS. Yes; we have that in the statistical division of the department. Though it will be difficult to get an average on account of different conditions in different localities, as can be seen from the following statement. Senator SMITH. I am interested in what the chairman says. Now you say poverty and starvation stalks through the ranks of the miners? Secretary DAVIS. I say it is just as bad for the operator and investor, because they are getting no dividends. Poverty for the miner means poverty for the operators. Senator SMITH. It would be interesting to this committee, or one member of it at least, to know what is the actual cost of delivering the coal on board the car at the mouth of the mine; what the miner gets Secretary DAVIS (interposing). We have that information. I can get that. Senator SMITH. I want to know, then, what it costs to bring it to Washington, and then what it costs to the man who handles it at Washington, what it costs him, and what he gets. Secretary DAVIS. The committee can be furnished with part of this information. Senator SMITH. That would be very interesting for us to have. Secretary DAVIS. You know, Senator-you were not here, I believe, when I pointed out the wages in different localities range from $3 a day to $6 a day. That is the differential in getting into these matters. Senator SMITH. Then it would be interesting to know what dif ference the ultimate consumer pays for the coal that he gets from the $3 man and what he pays for what he gets from the $6 man. The public would be interested to know how he is to be served in the solution of this problem. There is a terrible waste somewhere. There is an enormous profit somewhere with the amount I have been informed that is paid to the miner for the mining and putting it aboard the car and what the consumer has to pay. Secretary DAVIS. You will find the cost of mining different. Some mines produce it at around $1 a ton; the conditions of mining are such that they can produce it for that. Senator SMITH. All that enters in. What we want is the average cost at the mouth of the mine, and then where all this expense is incurred before it gets to the consumer. Secretary DAVIS. All right. We can give you part of that, I am sure. BITUMINOUS COAL, 1922 The use of average costs of production of bituminous coal per ton for the United States as a whole, when conditions differ so radically from State to State and field to field in the same State and in different mines in the same field, is likely to lead to wrong conclusions. Seams of coal vary in thickness, in ceilings, floors, and the cost of production varies with these conditions. It also varies with the amount of water in the mines and with provisions made to meet dangerous gaseous conditions. The United States Coal Commission reported 1922 average labor costs of $1.74 per ton, and a total f. o. b. cost of $2.64 per ton for 653 operators in the northern Appalachian field. These mines in that year produced 128,000,000 tons of coal. The costs in the southern Appalachian region for 135 operators were $1.49 per ton for labor and $2.28 f. o. b. The costs for the eastern interior region for 199 operators was $1.95 for labor and $2.54 f. o. b. For the western interior and southwestern region for 114 operators was $3.03 for labor and $3.94 f. o. b., and for the Great Plains, Rocky Mountain, and Pacific coast region for 79 operators, was $2.02 for labor and $2.80 f. o. b. The cost for the United States for 1,180 operators was $1.84 for labor and $2.65 f. o. b. The southern Appalachian region produced 26,000,000 tons in 1922, the eastern interior region 52,000,000. The cost in Pennsylvania, by fields, in this year for labor was $1.88 per ton, and ranged from $1.56 per ton in the Westmoreland-Ligonier field to $3.20 per ton in the Blossburg field. The labor cost in West Virginia in this year, by fields, ranged from $1.16 per ton in the Pocahontas field to $2.64 in Maryland-Potomac field. In addition to labor and other costs at the mine other costs are necessary in the distribution of coal before it reaches the consumer including freight and those of the retail coal dealers in providing coal yards, storage, and delivery trucks in sufficient quantity to make prompt delivery of coal at all seasons of the year. The retailer's expense of distributing coal is an item of cost that varies greatly. The cost per ton to the retailer who has provided extensive storage and delivery trucks to promptly fill all orders in winter is very large when compared with the cost to the small retailer who sells from the car to the consumer's truck or to a hired truck. Senator WHEELER. Mr. Secretary, you have attempted to get the coal operators together at different times to try to work out a solution of the problem, have you not? Secretary DAVIS. Yes, sir. Senator WHEELER. And what success have you ever met with in trying to get these operators together and in trying to work out a solution for themselves? Secretary DAVIS. Sometimes I have been very successful in adjusting the controversies between the miners and the operators, and at other times I have been unable to do anything with them. Senator WHEELER. As a matter of fact, the operators have refused, at times, to confer with you? Secretary DAVIS. Some of them. Senator WHEELER. Some of them? Secretary WHEELER. Yes, sir. Senator WHEELER. A goodly proportion of them have? Senator WHEELER. And if left to themselves, what do you think that they would do, in view of what has happened in the past, to work out a solution of the whole business? Secretary DAVIS. Well, there is a movement on now to try to do something; at least, I notice that these consolidations are taking place, and they are trying to bring the companies together. They are beginning to understand that it is the only way out; at least, there was a statement or report put out by one of our great banking institutions on coal, just issued recently. They pointed out that consolidation was the only way out. Senator WHEELER. But this situation to-day is not a new situation? Secretary DAVIS. Oh, no. Senator WHEELER. It is something that has been going on for some time. Secretary DAVIS. It has been with me during my nearly eight years of service, as I pointed out in this statement. It is not much better to-day than it was then. Senator WHEELER. The truth is that you have not found the same high executive ability among the coal operators that you have found in other lines of industry? Secretary DAVIS. Well, there does not seem to be any outstanding man in coal as in steel or in some of the other industries. The CHAIRMAN. What they need is a boss. Secretary DAVIS. I said in my speech to the American Mining Congress two years ago that they needed a sort of czar to tell them what to do; a man of the type of Charles Evans Hughes. Senator SMITH. Well, is the trouble now overproduction? Secretary DAVIS. Yes. But, as I pointed out here, with substitutes and machinery, and so forth, coal consumption has been lessened. If it were not for these conditions there would be work for every miner. Senator SMITH. I see. Secretary DAVIS. But with modern machinery coming along, it is reducing the work for the miner also. And I talked with a man recently who said they are going to put in modern machinery that will do away with half of the men. And there has come to my attention the condition in the metalliferous mines. In a metalliferous mine I was told they used 886 men, and they reduced that number to 288, and my informant said that in a year they would reduce that number 188, leaving only 100 men to do what 886 men used to, and at the same time they are increasing the production. Senator WHEELER. What kind of machinery was that? Secretary DAVIS. That was new machinery in metalliferous mining. I am not informed as to the kind of machine. I have not seen the machinery. It has been stated that up to now they have not been able to produce a machine to take the place of the iron puddler. But next week I expect to go to Ohio to see a machine that they tell me will turn out more product in an hour than four men formerly turned out. Senator WHEELER. I am interested in what you say, because that is in my State. Secretary DAVIS. I know you are interested in mining matters. Senator WHEELER. Do you know what the nature of the machine is? Secretary DAVIS. I have just got this information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but was not told of the actual machine. I quoted this to the American Mining Congress in my address there the other day. Some of the delegates had heard of the machine. Senator SMITH. And you say there is some similar device now being perfected in the mining of coal? Secretary DAVIS. The machine mining of coal has been going on for the last 20 years. Senator SMITH. You mean mechanical mining? The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Senator HAWES. I would like to ask a few questions, Mr. Chair man. The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary, our difficulty seems to be a constitutional one. Now our committee has before it the question of the consolidation of railroads Secretary DAVIS (interposing). Well, Senator, do not present any constitutional questions to me, because I am not a lawyer. Senator HAWES. I am not going to present any constitutional questions to you, Mr. Secretary. We have before us the question of the consolidation of the railroads, which is a comparatively simple matter, because they are subject to a Federal jurisdiction, and the object of that bill is to permit consolidation, followed by regulation. Now our difficulty in this problem seems to be the one presented by Senator Goff. When coal enters into interstate commerce it really seems to me that it comes under our jurisdiction; but prior to that time, according to the Supreme Court decisions-prior to its mining, and in the operation of the mines, it is under the jurisdiction of the State. And it seems, unless, as you suggest, there is a change in the Constitution, we can not take jurisdiction over the operation of mining in the individual States. Now the question that I want to ask you is this: Leaving aside the matter of mining itself, which seems to be within the jurisdiction of the State, a permissive consolidation-that is to say, a consolidation and change in the laws which will not come in contact with the Sherman Antitrust Act would that sort of legislation make consolidation easier, and the transfer of stock easier, and the bringing together of these properties in a simpler form? Would that benefit the situation, that act alone? Secretary DAVIS. Well, anything that would be helpful, that would bring them together, would be welcome. You are getting back to the production of coal, Senator. Senator HAWES. Yes. Secretary DAVIS. For example, I may own a mine; I may produce the coal in a State; I may sell you the coal in the same State, or take the coal, and sell it to some party in another State. Senator HAWES. Then it comes into interstate commerce. Senator HAWES. And then it comes under regulation. That would be perfectly clear. Secretary DAVIS. I would say it would be perfectly fine if we could get all of the interests together and bring about consolidation without any change in the law. Senator HAWES. Then if there were some change in the lawmaking consolidation simpler and easier, as we are considering in the railroad' matter, that would be helpful, in your opinion? Secretary DAVIS. Well, I say again, anything that you can do that will bring the coal interests together in a reasonable sort of way so that we can eliminate most of this disastrous competition, would be very good. Senator HAWES. The difficulties that you have suggested, of course, are quite apparent. The substitution for coal, by oil, and electricity, and economy in labor devices, is something that we can not control. And, apparently, we could not control the operation of a mine, for |