Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-10T07:35:54.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Great Expectations: The Search for Order in Bituminous Coal, 1890–1917*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

William Graebner
William Graebner
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of History, State University College, Fredonia, N.Y.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Arguing that the American bituminous coal industry suffered from “excessive competition,” this study traces the industry's repeated failures to control output or prices, whether by various kinds of trade associations, mergers, or by attempts to secure government sanctions for cooperation. Although an over-zealous Department of Justice must bear some responsibility for the industry's “sick” condition, Professor Graebner concludes, the fundamental problem lay in the basic economic conditions in the industry.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , Spring 1974 , pp. 49 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, D.C., 1960), 356Google Scholar.

2 United Mine Workers Journal, May 12, 1910, 4, and May 20, 1910, 4; American Mining Congress, Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Session, XIII (1910), 225Google Scholar; clipping from Nation's Business, April 15, 1913, 12, found in United States Bureau of Mines, Records, Record Group 70, National Record Center, Suitland, Maryland, box 55; and Chance, H. M., “A New Method for Working Deep-Coal Beds,” Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, XXX (February-September, 1900), 287Google Scholar.

3 Kuhn, D. W., “Sherman Anti-Trust Law with Special Reference to the Coal Mining Industry,” AMC Proceedings, XIV (1911), 264Google Scholar.

4 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Report of the Department of Mines of Pennsylvania, Part II — Bituminous, 1910 (Harrisburg, 1911), 4Google Scholar.

5 Wilson, Herbert M., “Safety Measures in the Bituminous Coal Mines of Western Pennsylvania,” National Safety Council Proceedings, I (1912), 116Google Scholar. Wilson was with the U.S. Bureau of Mines.

6 U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Mineral Resources of the United States, 1915, Part II — Nonmetals (Washington, D.C., 1917), 487–492Google Scholar; ibid., 1910, 32–33; Moran, E. L., “The Coal Traffic of the Great Lakes,” Journal of Geography, XV (January, 1917), 150–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Coal Trade, 1896, 58, and ibid., 1911, 102; West Virginia, Annual Report of the Department of Mines for the Year Ending June 30, 1910 (Charleston, 1911), 81–87Google Scholar; International Commerce, Coal Trade of the U.S., 1900, 2853–2865.

7 Hamilton, Walton H. and Wright, Helen R., The Case of Bituminous Coal (New York, 1925), 56–57Google Scholar; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States, Volume XI, Mines and Quarries (1909), General Report and Analysis (Washington, D.C., 1913), 204–231Google Scholar; Twenty-Ninth Annual Coal Report of the Illinois Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1910 (Springfield, III., 1911), 1–2Google Scholar; and Black Diamond, XLVIII (January 6, 1912), 24Google Scholar. The lack of uniform accounting practices would make an accounting determination of profits virtually impossible before 1917 or 1918. This essay accepts the contemporary view that profits were low, a logical consequence of the industry's industrial and market structure.

8 The title is, of course, from Wiebe, Robert H., The Search for Order, 1877–1920 (New York, 1967)Google Scholar. Wiebe's use of the term is much broader than its use here, but it includes industrial organization. For another discussion of the problem of order and organization, see Galambos, Louis, “The Emerging Organizational Synthesis in Modern American History,” Business History Review, XLIV (Autumn, 1970), 279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 The word “waste” is not intended here to have a timeless economic meaning; it is conceivable that the use operators made of productive factors was economically viable, even in the long run. For an interesting statement of the problem, see Scoville, Warren C., “Did Colonial Farmers ‘Waste’ Our Land?” Southern Economic Journal, XX (October, 1953), 178–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 A Report to the Bituminous Coal Trade Association on the Present and Future of the Bituminous Coal Trade, 1908 (n.p., 1908), 11.

11 XII (January 26, 1911), 62.

12 Export statistics are computed from Historical Statistics of the United States, 356; Coal Trade Bulletin, XV (June 1, 1906), 35Google Scholar, and (August 1, 1906), 53; Coal Trade Journal, XXXV (September 16, 1896), 531Google Scholar, and XXXVIII (April 26, 1899), 217; Black Diamond, XXII (March 11, 1899), 267Google Scholar. On the Open Door idea, see Williams, William Appleman, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Sklar, Martin J., “Woodrow Wilson and the Political Economy of Modern United States Liberalism,” Studies on the Left, I (Fall 1960)Google Scholar, reprinted in Weinstein, James and Eakins, David W., eds., For a New America (New York, 1970), 46–100Google Scholar; and McCormick, Thomas J., China Market (Chicago, 1967)Google Scholar.

13 Report of the Uniform Mining Laws Conference, Chicago, Illinois, November 13, 14, 15, 1916 (Springfield, III., n.d.)Google Scholar; Weinstein, James, “Big Business and the Origins of Workmen's Compensation,” Labor History, VIII (Spring, 1967), 156–174Google Scholar; American Mining Congress, Proceedings, XIX (1916), 157–158Google Scholar. The U.S. Bureau of Mines was created in 1910 partly to provide a scientific underpinning for uniform legislation. See Graebner, William Sievers, “Coal Mining Safety: National Solutions in the Progressive Period” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1970), 67Google Scholar.

14 Lambie, Joseph T., From Mine to Market: The History of Cool Transportation on the Norfolk and Western Railway (New York, 1954), 59Google Scholar; U.S. House of Representatives, Report on Discriminations and Monopolies in Coal and Oil, Interstate Commerce Commission, H. Doc. 561, 50th Cong., 2d Sess., 1907.

15 Lambie, 87ff., 180ff., 189–190; Kolko, Gabriel, Railroads and Regulation, 1877–1916 (New York, 1965), 94ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Coal Trade, 1911, 22, 60, and ibid., 1910, 33; Mineral Resources, 1915, Part II, 191–192 and 406; Twenty-Fourth Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Mines, To the Governor of the State of Ohio, for the Year 1898 (Columbus, Ohio, 1890), 9, 22–23, 303Google Scholar; ibid., 1909, 5, and ibid., 1912, 64.

17 Coal and Coke Operator, XV (December 12, 1912), 369Google Scholar; Coal and Coke Operator and The Fuel Magazine, XXI (September 25, 1913), 486Google Scholar.

18 Coal and Coke Operator, X (February 17, 1910), 107Google Scholar; letter A. J. Moorshead, Madison Coal Corporation, to T. L. Lewis, President, United Mine Workers of America (April 9, 1908), in Edward A. Wieck Papers, Archives of Labor History and Urban Affairs, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, box 1, book 3. The Interstate Joint Conference was the bargaining forum for miners and operators.

19 U.S. House of Representatives, Industrial Commission, Report on the Relations and Conditions of Capital and Labor Employed in the Mining Industry, XIII (Washington, 1901), 678Google Scholar.

20 Coal Trade Journal, XXXVII (March 23, 1898), 157Google Scholar, and XXXV (September 2, 1896), 502.

21 Letter John P. White, UMWA President, to Charles S. Keith, President, Central Coal and Coke Co., Kansas City, Mo. (September 20, 1915), in Federal Trade Commission, General Correspondence, 1914–1921, Record Group 122, National Archives, Washington, D.C., box 44, file 8149–13; letter T. L. Lewis to editor, Pittsburgh Daily Headlight (March 10, 1911), in Wieck Papers, box 16, book 3; Harlan, Robert H., “Is Uniform Mining Legislation Advisable?” AMC Proceedings, XIX (1916), 600–601Google Scholar; speech of William B. Wilson, in UMWA District 2 Proceedings, March 25, 1908 session (1908), 76-77; United Mine Workers Journal, October 28, 1915, 4, and November 4, 1915, 4; and U.S. House of Representatives, Hearings Before the Committee on Mines and Mining, To Consider the Question of the Establishment of a Bureau of Mines, 1908 (Washington, D.C., 1908), 32–33Google Scholar.

On the integration of labor into the corporate order, the place to begin is Radosh, Ronald, “The Corporate Ideology of American Labor Leaders from Gompers to Hillman,” Studies on the Left, VI (November-December, 1966), 66–88Google Scholar, and the comment on that piece by Philip S. Foner in the same issue, 89–96. David Brody briefly considers the problem in “Labor and the Great Depression: The Interpretative Prospects,” Labor History, XIII (Spring, 1972), 231–244Google Scholar. Melvyn Dubofsky makes the argument in When Workers Organize: New York City in the Progressive Era (Amherst, Mass., 1968), 44Google Scholar. The above analysis is intended to supplement, not replace the more traditional views; it recognizes that the essence of labor-management relations (at least in this period) was conflict. Radosh goes considerably further, but then he was dealing with Samuel Gompers and the AF of L, not the United Mine Workers.

22 Black Diamond, XLVIII (January 27, 1912), 35Google Scholar.

23 Letter Fleming to Neil Robinson (December 31, 1909), in Aretas Brooks Fleming Papers, West Virginia University Library, Morgantown, West Virginia, box August-December 1909; Coal and Coke Operator, XIII (December 14, 1911), 388Google Scholar.

24 Coal and Coke Operator, XIII (August 10, 1911), 91Google Scholar; XIV (January 11, 1912), 24; XIV (January 18, 1912), 37; and XII (January 26, 1911), 60; Coal and Coke Operator and Fuel, XXI (May 15, 1913), 66Google Scholar; (May 8, 1913), 35.

25 Coal and Coke Operator, XIII (December 14, 1911), 381Google Scholar; Suffern, Arthur E., The Coal Miners' Struggle for Industrial Status (New York, 1926), 168–170Google Scholar, and Suffern, , Conciliation and Arbitration in the Coal Industry of America (Boston, 1915), 128–134Google Scholar. The stated objective of the association was to “promote the common interests of the coal operators of America by all lawful means; but the Federation shall not deal with matters relating to freight rates, prices or sale of coal.”

26 Lambie, 48; Coal Trade Journal, XXXI (December 7, 1892), 583Google Scholar; (December 14, 1892), 591; XXXII (January 4, 1893), 2; (January 11, 1893), 23; (February 15, 1893), 95; XXXIII (October 24, 1894), 780; XXXIV (September 25, 1895), 725; XXXVI (June 16, 1897), 309; Black Diamond, XXII (March 18, 1899), 300Google Scholar; Coal and Coke Operator, XI (November 24, 1910), 757Google Scholar; memorandum by U.S. Attorney on New River and Pocahontas Arrangement (January 31, 1917), in Department of Justice Central Files, Classified Subject Files, Correspondence, Record Group 60, National Archives, Washington, D.C., box 607, file 60–187–16 (these records are hereinafter referred to as DJ–CS); and letter C. P. McKenzie to James R. Garfield (January 25, 1907), in Bureau of Corporations Records, Record Group 122, National Archives, Washington, D.C., box 198, file 4439–9.

27 Coal Trade Journal, XXXII (February 15, 1893), 104Google Scholar; XXXIV (August 28, 1895), 627; (February 6, 1895), 101; (July 31, 1895), 564; (August 7, 1895), 573; (August 21, 1895), 615; XXXV (January 22, 1896), 46; (March 25, 1896), 178. For an account of the Seaboard Steam Coal Association, see Lambie, 87–110.

28 October 7, 1915, 4; letter F. P. Carey, Clearfleld, Iowa, to George B. Cortelyou (March 25, 1903), Bureau of Corporations Records, file 0–40–31; clipping from San Francisco Chronicle enclosed in letter F. A. Lacey to James R. Garfield (September 23, 1907), Bureau of Corporations Records, box 598, file 4439–14; Coal Trade Journal, XXXI (April 6, 1892), 185Google Scholar; Coal and Coke Operator, XIV (April 4, 1912), 224Google Scholar; Coal and Coke, IX (August 1, 1902), 18Google Scholar; and file 60–187–9 in DJ–CS, box 606. Retailers were also organized regionally and nationally, but beyond the local level their economic functions were increasingly restricted. KoKoal, the national retail organization, was largely a social institution.

29 XXXIV (October 9, 1895), 758.

30 Tams, W. P. Jr., The Smokeless Coal Fields of West Virginia (Morgantown, 1963), 78Google Scholar; Coal Trade Journal, XXXV (January 22, 1896), 46Google Scholar; (June 10, 1896), 339; XXXVI (February 17, 1897), 87; (June 16, 1897), 309.

31 Coal Trade Journal, XXXVII (February 16, 1898), 92Google Scholar; and U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, XIII, 119.

32 Coal Trade Journal, XXXVIII (January 11, 1899), 19Google Scholar; Coal and Coke Operator, XIV (April 11, 1912), 233Google Scholar. The few attempts to limit output failed.

33 DJ–CS, box 617, file 60–187–94; Black Diamond, XXII (May 13, 1899), 520Google Scholar; Norris, James D., “The Missouri and Kansas Zinc Miners' Association, 1899–1905,” Business History Review, XL (Autumn, 1966), 334Google Scholar; Seager, Henry R. and Gulick, Charles A. Jr., Trust and Corporation Problems (New York, 1929), 94–95 and 383–384Google Scholar; Letwin, William, Law and Economic Policy in America: The Evolution of the Sherman Antitrust Act (New York, 1964), chapters 4 and 5.Google Scholar

34 This conclusion discounts the role of economies of scale (minimal in bituminous coal production) and is in general agreement with the findings of Eichner, Alfred S. in The Emergence of Oligopoly: Sugar Refining as a Case Study (Baltimore, 1969)Google Scholar. Unlike sugar refining, however, the problems of the coal industry were precipitated in part by the transportation-stimulated emergence of a national market. See Eichner, Emergence, 94, and Bain, Joe S., “Industrial Concentration and Anti-Trust Policy,” in Williamson, Harold F., ed., The Growth of the American Economy (New York, 1951), 616–630Google Scholar.

35 Coal and Coke Operator, X (June 9, 1910), 369Google Scholar; XI (November 24, 1910), 757; (December 22, 1910), 840; XVI (April 3, 1913), 252; U.S. Industrial Commission, Final Report (1902), 229–230; and ibid., XIII (1901), 100–102; Coal Trade Journal, XXXII (June 28, 1893), 400Google Scholar; XXXVIII (May 17, 1899), 255; (August 23, 1899), 438; Mineral Resources, 1900, 274; 1905, p. 746; and 1915, 549; Coal Trade, 1896, 8; Coal and Coke Operator, X (June 9, 1910), 369Google Scholar.

36 Coal Trade, 1901, 39; memorandum, October 11, 1911, in Fleming Papers, box September 1911–February 1912; Conley, Phil, History of the West Virginia Coal Industry (Charleston, W. Va., 1960), 98, 168, 221, 235Google Scholar; Moody's Manual of Railroads and Corporation Securities, 1910 (New York, 1910)Google Scholar.

37 Coal Trade journal, XXXVII (March 23, 1898), 157Google Scholar; Dixon, Harry Mitchell, “The Illinois Coal Mining Industry” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1951), 74, 96Google Scholar; Mineral Resources, 1905, 505–506; Coal Trade Bulletin, September 1, 1906, 45, and October 1, 1906, 27; Ohio Mine Inspectors' Report, 1909, 5–6; Coal and Coke Operator, XII (February 23, 1911), 128–129Google Scholar; (March 2, 1911), 142–143; XIII (September 21, 1911), 186. A plan similar to the midwestern one was mentioned for the Appalachian region. See Coal and Coke Operator, XI (October 6, 1910), 642Google Scholar. For statistics on bituminous mergers, see Nelson, Ralph L., Merger Movements in American Industry, 1895–1956 (Princeton, 1959), 46, 62Google Scholar, and Appendices B and C.

38 Black Diamond, XL (February 22, 1908), 17Google Scholar; Coal and Coke Operator, XV (July 11, 1912), 27Google Scholar; Coal and Coke, IX (January 1, 1902), 12–13Google Scholar, and (April 1, 1902), 8–9.

39 Black Diamond, XLVIII (April 13, 1912), 18Google Scholar; letter John Mitchell to Joseph A. Holmes (November 27, 1909), in John Mitchell Papers, Mullen Library, Catholic University, Washington, D.C., box A3–15, file 63; The Independent, LX (April 26, 1906), 991–992Google Scholar; letter U.S. Attorney, Topeka, Kansas, to Attorney General (April 10, 1912), in DJ–CS, box 607, file 60–187–21; letter D. W. Kuhn to W. S. Kenyon, Assistant Attorney General (April 28, 1910), ibid., box 606, file 60–187–3; letter Cyrus E. Woods to George W. Wickersham (February 3, 1912), ibid., and Wickersham to Woods (February 8, 1912), ibid.; letter J. F. Shotts to James R. Garfield (October 25, 1906), in Bureau of Corporations Records, box 598, file 4439–8; letter W. P. Atkins to Theodore Roosevelt (September 11, 1907), ibid., file 4439–11; letter A. L. Brandenburg (January 20, 1909), ibid., file 4439–18; Coal and Coke Operator, XV (July 11, 1912), 27Google Scholar; X (March 3, 1910), 137; Traer, Glenn W., “Conservation in the Coal Industry, Protection of Life and Prevention of Waste,” AMC Proceedings, XI (1908), part 2, 161–163Google Scholar; and Letwin, Law and Economic Policy, 240–266.

40 Nelson, Milton Nels, “Open Price Associations,” University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, X (June, 1922), 9–10, 14–15Google Scholar; Seager and Gulick, 305, 318–319; and Galambos, Louis, Competition and Cooperation: The Emergence of a National Trade Association (Baltimore, 1966), 78–83Google Scholar.

41 From the Report of the Annual Meeting of February 11, 1904, 4–5, copy in Bureau of Corporations Records, file 5091–6; Coal Trade Journal, XXXVI (January 20, 1897), 29Google Scholar.

42 Letter Holmes to Mitchell (no date), in Mitchell Papers, box A3–15, file 63.

43 Letter Justus Collins to Isaac T. Mann (February 29, 1912), in Justus Collins Papers, West Virginia University Library, Morgantown, W. Va., series I, box 10, folder 67; Coal and Coke Operator, X (May 19, 1910), 314Google Scholar; (April 14, 1910), 236–237; XIII (September 28, 1911), 201; XV (July 11, 1912), 27; Wiebe, Robert H., Businessmen and Reform: A Study of the Progressive Movement (Chicago, 1968), 82–84Google Scholar; Weinstein, James, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State, 1900–1918 (Boston, 1968), 83–84 and 149–150Google Scholar; and German, James C. Jr., “The Taft Administration and the Sherman Antitrust Act,” Mid-America, LIV (July 1972), 172–186Google Scholar.

44 Coal Trade, 1916, 70; Fuel Magazine, XX (February 5, 1913), 7–8Google Scholar.

45 Parker, Edward W., “Cooperation, Conservation and Competition in Coal,” AMC Proceedings, XIX (1916), 242Google Scholar; Slack Diamond, LVI (January 1, 1916), 1Google Scholar; (June 17, 1916), 498.

46 Black Diamond, LIV (March 13, 1915), 210–211Google Scholar; LVII (December 30, 1916), 578; letter Bulkley, Hauxhurst, Inglis, and Saeger, Attorneys, to Department of Justice (May 24, 1916), in DJ–CS, box 607, file 60–187–13; typescript of address by Robert E. Belt, FTC, delivered March 23, 1916, in FTC General Records, 1914–21, box 42, file 8140–2–8; American Mining Congress, Proceedings, XIX (1916) 78–83 and 186–192Google Scholar.

47 Report of the Pennsylvania Department of Mines, 1909, iii; Kuhn, D. W., “Sherman Anti-Trust Law with Special Reference to the Coal Mining Industry,” AMC Proceedings, XIV (1911), 259Google Scholar; Coal and Coke Operator and Fuel, XXI (October 23, 1913), 562Google Scholar; Black Diamond, LII (April 18, 1914), 312Google Scholar; Coal Age, I (November 11, 1911), 143Google Scholar; and Outlook, December 11, 1909, 797–798.

48 Letter James R. Garfield to Henry Knox Smith (May 7, 1908), in James R. Garfleld Papers, Manuscript Division, U.S. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Office Files, box 128; Black Diamond, XL (May 2, 1908), 17Google Scholar; Coal and Coke Operator, XI (October 6, 1910), 642Google Scholar; Kolko, Gabriel, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916 (Chicago, 1967), 133–138Google Scholar; Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 80–81; Weinstein, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State, 77–82; and Davis, George Cullom Jr., “The Federal Trade Commission: Promise and Practice in Regulating Business, 1900–1929” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1969), 16–17Google Scholar.

49 Coal and Coke Operator, XVI (February 27, 1913)Google Scholar; and Weinstein, Corporate Ideal, 82.

50 AMC Proceedings, XIV (1911), 39–41Google Scholar; Coal Age, I (January 6, 1912), 433Google Scholar; Coal and Coke Operator, XIV (April 11, 1912), 235Google Scholar; and Black Diamond, XLVIII (April 13, 1912), 18Google Scholar.

51 Moorshead, A. J., “Condition of the Bituminous Coal Industry,” AMC Proceedings, XIV (1911), 251Google Scholar; AMC Proceedings, XIV (1911), 42 and 279Google Scholar; Black Diamond, XLVIII (June 1, 1912), 20Google Scholar; LII (April 18, 1914), 312; Coal and Coke Operator, XIV (May 2, 1912), 278–279Google Scholar; and Coal and Coke Operator and Fuel, XXII (December 25, 1913), 137—138Google Scholar.

52 Coal and Coke Operator, XIII (September 28, 1911), 196Google Scholar; (November 2, 1911), 281; and Coal Age, I (May 18, 1912), 1049–1050Google Scholar.

53 U.S. Senate, Committee on Interstate Commerce, Hearings Pursuant to Senate Resolution 98, Vol. II, 62nd Cong., 1912, 2320–2332, 2354–2368, 2371, 2381–2393, 2400; Coal and Coke Operator, XV (August 29, 1912), 138Google Scholar; X (March 3, 1910), 137.

54 Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, Hearings Pursuant to SR 98, 2363.

55 Coal and Coke Operator, XVI (February 20, 1913), 147Google Scholar; Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, Hearings Pursuant to SR 98, 2324, 2331, 2334–2335, 2359, 2362, 2366, 2368, 2390, 2393, 2397, 2404; U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Hearings, Interstate Trade Commission, 1914, 1914, 460–461.

56 U.S. Statutes at Large, XXXVIII, 717ff.Google Scholar; Black Diamond, LIII (July 18, 1914), 50; (August 1, 1914), 90–91; (August 15, 1914), 131.

57 Coal Age, VI (November 21, 1914), 844Google Scholar.

58 LIII (December 19, 1914), 29, and (December 29, 1914), 525.

59 Black Diamond, LIV (May 15, 1915), 414Google Scholar; and LIII (December 26, 1914), 525.

60 December 2, 1915, in FTC General Correspondence, 1914–1921, box 44, file 8149–13. See also Davis, The Federal Trade Commission, 131; Williams, Nathan B., “The Federal Trade Commission Law,” Annals, LXIII (January, 1916), 20–21Google Scholar; and AMC Proceedings, XIX (1916), 242Google Scholar.

61 Edward N. Hurley, Awakening of Business (n.p., 1916), 202.

62 Typescript of Belt Address, FTC Records; typescript of “Informal Conference with Illinois and Indiana Coal Operators,” May 15, 1916, in FTC General Records, 1914–1921, box 201, file 8508–572–2–1, 7–8, 90; letter L. C. Boyle to Joseph Davies (March 30, 1916), FTC General Records, box 44, file 8149–13; FTC General Records, box 38, file 8116–2; and letter W. C. Saeger to Department of Justice (May 24, 1916), DJ–CS, box 607, file 60–187–13; Hurley, Awakening of Business, 197–200.

63 Letter George W. Anderson, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, to Attorney General (January 6, 1917), Department of Justice Central Files, Straight Numerical Files, box 1874, file 181092 (1–99) (these flies are hereinafter referred to as DJ–SN); memorandum signed D. A. Morrow, “Preliminary Memoranda in Regard to Proposed Agreement of Indiana Coal Operators and Conditions in the Coal Mining Industry of Illinois,” in FTC General Correspondence, box 196, file 8508–10–2–1; and Declaration of Purposes, Articles of Association and By-Laws of the Franklin County, Illinois, Coal Operators' Association (n.p., 1904), copy in FTC General Records, ibid., file 8508–10–1–1.

64 Letter Attorney General Thomas Gregory to William Howard, House of Representatives (July 25, 1917), DJ–SN, box 1874, file 181092 (310).

65 Letter Anderson to Gregory (January 6, 1917), DJ–SN, box 1874, file 181092 (1–99); letter Anderson to Gregory (January 10, 1917), ibid. (100–179); Assistant to Attorney General to Charles F. Kingsley (June 15, 1917), ibid. (250–309); and DJ–CS, box 607, file 60–187–16.

66 Letter W. S. Bogle, et al., to Joseph E. Davies (March 25, 1915), FTC General Records, box 196, file 8508–10–1–1; D. A. Morrow, “Preliminary Memoranda.”

67 Letter Anderson to Gregory (January 10, 1917), DJ–SN, box 1874, file 181092 (100–179). Anderson's recollections were based on personal notes taken at the April 21, 1915 meeting between Todd and the Indiana operators (letter L. L. Bracken [February 23, 1917], in FTC General Records, box 190, file 8502–297).

68 This is particularly obvious in the May 15, 1916 FTC-Illinois-Indiana Conference, report in FTC General Records, 12, 14, 83; also Black Diamond, LVI (May 27, 1916), 444–445Google Scholar. In 1962, G. Cullom Davis made the point that until 1925, the commission tried “to execute a strict regulatory policy in accordance with the progressive ideals of economic reform.” But Davis dismissed the years before 1918 and offered little proof for his thesis before that date. See “The Transformation of the Federal Trade Commission, 1914–1929,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLIX (December, 1962), 437–455Google Scholar.

69 Letter Boyle to Davies (January 22, 1916), FTC General Records, box 44, file 8149–13; Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 84.

70 Letter Charles S. Keith and W. R. Fairley to Samuel Gompers and John Fahey (January 19, 1916), FTC General Records, box 44, file 8149–13; Black Diamond, LV (October 23, 1915), 325Google Scholar; and Coal and Coke Operator, XXI (February 1917), 15Google Scholar.

71 Recent critiques of Progressivism from the New Left have overemphasized harmony and underemphasized conflict in business-government relationships. See Sklar, 78–79, Weinstein, Corporate Ideal, 89, 91, and Kolko, Triumph of Conservatism, 268–270. “The business community,” states Kolko, “knew what it wanted from the commission, and what it wanted was almost precisely what the commission sought to do.” (Ibid., 278.) Only further research will indicate conclusively whether the coal industry's relationship to the federal government was typical or uniquely frustrating, the exception that proves the rule. There are indications that other groups, presumably without the divisions and disabilities of the coal industry, were also unable to obtain precisely what they wanted. The National Civic Federation, for example, was no more successful than the coal industry in getting Congress to act on its trust program. See Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, Hearings Pursuant to SR 98, 515–516, 519, 521, 527, 529. There is reason to doubt Weinstein's claim that “the ideas embodied in the Federal Trade Commission Act represented a triumph of the agitation and education done by the NCF over the previous seven years” (Corporate Ideal, 89).

72 Black Diamond, LVIII (April 28, 1917), 355Google Scholar; and JD–SN, box 1874, file 181092 (100–179).

73 Beaver, Daniel R., Newton D. Baker and the American War Effort, 1917–1919 (Lincoln, Nebraska, 1966), 64–66Google Scholar; Letter Anderson to Gregory (June 30, 1917), JD–SN, box 1874, file 181092 (250–309); letter Judge Isaac R. Oeland to Gregory (July 13, 1917), DJ–CS, box 607, file 60–187–16; memorandum, undated and unsigned, on formation of the National Coal Association, JD–SN, box '874, file 181092 (250–309); Black Diamond, LVIII (June 30, 1917), 552Google Scholar; (July 28, 1917), 61; (August 4, 1917), 87; and (September 29, 1917), 249.

74 Hawley, Ellis W., “Secretary Hoover and the Bituminous Coal Problem, 1921–1928,” Business History Review, XHI (Autumn, 1968), 247–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnson, James P., “Drafting the NRA Code of Fair Competition for the Bituminous Coal Industry,” Journal of American History, LIII (December, 1966), 521–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hawley, Ellis W., The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly: A Study in Economic Ambivalence (Princeton, 1966), 205–212Google Scholar.