uld mine their coal more cheaply, have a greater profit for
themselves and conserve our resources.

To some extent the plan here advocated was 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.

7. To reduce the excessive royalties paid to fee owners. Smith and
Lesher[56] 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.

8. 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
cooperation 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.

9. The local conservation of coal at the expense of heavier drafts on
coal of other parts of the world, by imposition of export taxes and
preferential duties, has been discussed. While the effect of such a
measure would doubtless be conservational from the standpoint of the
United States, it is doubtful if it could be so regarded from the
broader standpoint of world civi