put into effect during the war by the United States Coal Administration; but the conditions of this trial were so complicated by special war requirements, that the conservational advantages of unified control were not demonstrated.
- To reduce the excessive royalties paid to fee owners. Smith and Lesher15 have recently called attention to the relatively high resource cost in some of the coal fields, represented by the payment of royalties to fee owners. In the case of anthracite the payment averages 32 to 35 cents per ton, and exceptionally runs as high as a dollar per ton. For the bituminous coal the average resource cost is probably not much over five cents a ton. They suggest the possibility of lowering this cost by governmental regulation; and make an especially strong argument for not allowing the government-owned coal lands to go to private owners, who in the future, with the accumulation of interest on the investment, will feel justified in asking for a large "resource" return in the way of royalty.
If the resource cost could be lowered, further introduction of conservational methods by the operators would be possible without greatly increasing the cost to the public.
- To require or allow, by government regulation, a raising of the price of coal to the consumer, thereby allowing wider application of conservational practices. Some of the increased recoveries of coal above noted have been made possible only by increase in the market price. If coöperation were permitted in the manner described in paragraph 6, the same results might be accomplished without increasing the price. Recent high prices caused by the war situation are reflected in the introduction of many conservational changes which were not before possible. However, in some cases the demand for quick results under present conditions has an opposite effect, because of the desire to realize quick profits regardless of conservation.