The Coal Wars of the Pacific
A mine manager argues that a higher tariff on Australian coal is the key to regional prosperity and industrial growth.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
S. J. Smith, general manager of the Oregon Improvement Company, argued yesterday that as Australia has placed a heavy tariff on American lumber, there is no good reason why the United States tariff should not be materially increased on foreign coal. The current tariff is only about 75 cents per ton. Smith stated, 'Take as an example our mines at Newcastle. We produce about 12,000 tons per month. At a cost not very much greater we could have a monthly output of 25,000 tons if we had the market for it. If we could keep out the 1,000,000 tons laid down in San Francisco from Australia, it would yield more business for the merchant, more carrying for the railroads, and greater prosperity for every miner in the state. Add from $1 to $1.50 to the present tariff and it would bring about a much improved condition to the coal business of this state.'
“It does not take much figuring to show what an immense advantage it would be to Seattle and Tacoma if we had a market for this added million of tons now supplied by a foreign and commercially antagonistic country.”
The economic tension between local resource extraction and global trade is a constant in Pacific Northwest history. Today's debates over coal export terminals and carbon footprints echo the same 19th-century struggle to reconcile regional industry with international market forces.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.