Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:55:58.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Secretary Hoover and the Bituminous Coal Problem, 1921-1928

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Ellis W. Hawley
Ellis W. Hawley
Affiliation:
Professor of History, Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For seven years, the economic philosophy and political values of Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover challenged the structure, attitudes, and positions of a major, but poorly functioning, industry. This clash of wills and purposes, although colorful in itself, had broader significance in the evolution of government-business relationships in the United States. Professor Hawley argues that it was an important milestone in the conceptual development of “cooperative individualism and competitive co-operation.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1968 , pp. 247 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1968

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 Noggle, Burl, “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier,” Journal of American History, LIII (Sept., 1966), 299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also May, Henry F., “Shifting Perspectives on the 1920's,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLIII (Dec, 1956), 412–23Google Scholar; Heald, Morrell, “Business Thought in the Twenties,” American Quarterly, XIII (Summer, 1961), 126–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chambers, Clarke, Seedtime of Reform (Minneapolis, 1963), 235–36, 266–67Google Scholar; Glad, Paul W., “Progressives and the Business Culture of the 1920's,” Journal of American History, LIII (June, 1966), 80–81Google Scholar.

2 See Galambos, Louis, Competition and Cooperation (Baltimore, 1966), 83–85, 111–12Google Scholar; Romasco, Albert, Poverty of Abundance (New York, 1965), 18–20, 42–45, 231–34Google Scholar.

3 Galambos, op. cit., 74, 93; Romasco, op, cit., 10–20; Degler, Carl, “Ordeal of Herbert Hoover,” Yale Review, LII (Summer, 1963), 563–73, 581–82Google Scholar; Mowry, George, The Urban Nation (New York, 1965), 56–59, 61–63Google Scholar.

4 Hoover, Herbert C., American Individualism (Garden City, 1922), 7–11, 32–35, 41–45, 53–55, 67Google Scholar; The New Day (Stanford, 1928), 157–68Google Scholar; Memoirs, II (New York, 1952), 28–29Google Scholar; Dept. of Commerce, Trade Association Activities, 8; Williams, William Appleman, Contours of American History (Chicago, 1966 ed.), 427–28Google Scholar.

5 Hoover, Addresses, April 12, 1922, May 7, 1924, May 12, 1926, Boxes 1–I/51, 307, 2–Q/383, Hoover Papers, Hoover Presidential Library; Hoover, in New York Times, May 9, 1923; American Individualism, 41–45; New Day, 31–35, 166–68, 196–204; Dept. of Commerce, op. cit., xi, 8; Romasco, op. cit., 41–44.

6 Romasco, op. cit., 25–26, 102–07, 231–33; Degler, “Ordeal of Hoover,” loc. cit., 564–73; Galambos, op. cit., 102–03, 114–15; Warren, Harris G., Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression (New York, 1967 ed.), 114–17Google Scholar; Bernstein, Irving, The Lean Years (Boston, 1960), 250Google Scholar; Hoover, , Memoirs, II, 62–71Google Scholar.

7 Hoover, , “Stabilization of Bituminous Coal Industry,” Mining and Metallurgy, CLIX (March, 1920), 1–2Google Scholar; Memoirs, II, 70–71; Coal Age, XVII (April 29, 1920), 859–60Google Scholar.

8 U.S. Coal Commission, Report (1925), 203–07; Crowther, Samuel, in World's Work, XLI (Dec, 1920), 172Google Scholar; Cheyney, Alice, in American Federationist, XXXIII (Aug.–Oct., 1926), 947–48, 1087, 1226–27Google Scholar; Lesher, C. E., in American Economic Review Supplement, XI (March, 1921), 49–52Google Scholar; Hamilton, Walton, in Nation, CXXVI (April 4, 1928), 368Google Scholar.

9 Coal Commission, Report, 201–03, 206–07, 228–29; Wolfe, Thomas, “Recent Changes in the Bituminous-Coal Industry,” Harvard Business Review, X (Jan., 1932), 157–60Google Scholar; Hale, Sydney, “Troubles of the Bituminous Coal Industry,” Current History, XXXIV (Sept., 1931), 813–16Google Scholar; Stocking, George, “Labour Problems in the American Bituminous Coal Industry,” Economic Journal, XXXVII (June, 1927), 216–22Google Scholar; Berquist, F. E. et al. , Economic Survey of the Bituminous Coal Industry (Washington, 1936), 19–26, 76–77Google Scholar; Fisher, Waldo and James, Charles, Minimum Price Fixing in the Bituminous Coal Industry (Princeton, 1955), 9–13Google Scholar.

10 Hoover, “The Public and the Coal Industry,” Box 1–I/412, Hoover Papers. According to some authorities, however, only the capacity over and above that needed to meet peak seasonal demands should be regarded as excess. Measured in this way, the industry had an excess capacity of about 24 per cent. See Coal Commission, Report, 228–29.

11 Coal Commission, Report, 201–04, 213, 231–32; Wolfe, “Changes in Coal,” loc. cit., 156, 160; Nealey, J. B., in World's Work, XLIV (Aug., 1922), 372–75Google Scholar; Warne, Colston, in Nation, CXXVI (April 4, 1928), 369–70Google Scholar; Tyron, F. G., in American Economic Review Supplement, XI (March, 1921), 57–63; John Libby and Van Bittner, in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CXI, 32–42Google Scholar.

12 The first major postwar strike, in the fall of 1919, had led to an injunction against the union and the creation of a special commission, which made its award in 1920. By calling a national strike in 1922 and threatening another in 1924, the union then succeeded in staving off wage cuts until the latter part of the decade, when it was finally forced to accept them. It also tried desperately to unionize the West Virginia fields, but there the use of injunctions, gunmen, and “yellow-dog” contracts had broken the union drive by the end of 1923. See Baratz, Morton, The Union and the Coal Industry (New Haven, 1955), 58–62Google Scholar; Coleman, McAlister, Men and Coal (New York, 1943), 97–104, 122–34Google Scholar; Suffern, Arthur, The Coal Miners' Struggle for Industrial Status (New York, 1926), 100–08Google Scholar; Beame, Edmond, “The Jacksonville Agreement,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, VIII (Jan., 1955), 192–202Google Scholar; Warne, , in Nation, CXXVI (April 4, 1928), 369–70.Google Scholar

13 Stocking, “Labour Problems in Coal,” loc. cit., 216–22; Baratz, op. cit., 2–6; Hamilton, Walton and Wright, Helen, The Case of Bituminous Coal (New York, 1926), 173–209Google Scholar; Hamilton, , “Problem of Bituminous Coal,” American Labor Legislation Review, XVI (Sept., 1926), 220–26Google Scholar.

14 Wolfe, “Changes in Coal,” loc. cit., 159; Willits, Joseph, “Recent Coal Settlement,” American Review, II (Sept.–Oct., 1924), 494–95Google Scholar; Hutchinson, S. P., in Coal Review, IX (Oct. 1, 1924), 4Google Scholar; Non-Union Operators of Southern West Virginia, Statement to the United States Coal Commission (1923).

15 Senate Committee on Manufactures, Publication of Production and Profits in Coal (1921), 119, 123; Suffern, op. cit., 169–84; Ryan, Frederick, “Development of Coal Operators' Associations in the Southwest,” Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, XIV (Sept., 1933), 135–36Google Scholar; Helm, W. P., in Outlook, CXXX (Feb. 8, 1922), 216Google Scholar; Cheyney, , in American Federationist, XXXIII (Oct., 1926), 1226–27Google Scholar.

16 Parsons, Floyd, in World's Work, LIII (Jan., 1927), 237Google Scholar.

17 During the years 1921 to 1928, governmental agencies and congressional committees conducted no less than eight major investigations of the industry. See Senate Committee on Reconstruction and Production, Coal and Transportation (1921); Senate Committee on Manufactures, Publication of Production and Profits in Coal (1921); Senate Committee on Education and Labor, West Virginia Coal Fields (1921–22); Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, Conditions in the Coal Fields of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio (1928); House Committee on Labor, Investigation of Wages and Working Conditions in the Coal-Mining Industry (1922); House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Coal (1926); Federal Trade Commission, Investment and Profit in Soft-Coal Mining (1922); U.S. Coal Commission, Report (1925).

18 See, for example, Calder, William, in Outlook, CXXVIII (Aug. 17, 1921), 617Google Scholar; Henry Pritchett, in ibid., CXXXIII (April 4, 1923), 620; Parsons, Floyd, in World's Work, XLVI (Oct., 1923), 654Google Scholar; Drury, Horace, in American Labor Legislation Review, XIV (March, 1924), 87–89Google Scholar; Frelinghuysen, Joseph, in Commercial and Financial Chronicle, CX (May 15, 1920), 2039–40Google Scholar; in Congressional Record, 67 Cong., 1 Sess., LXI, 2938–41; American Engineering Council, in Steam Coal Buyer, Aug., 1924, p. 11.

19 Nationalization Research Committee, United Mine Workers of America, How to Run Coal (1922); Golden, C. J., in Outlook, CXXXIII (March 28, 1923), 576–77Google Scholar; in Forum, LXXV (May, 1926), 662–72Google Scholar; Warbasse, James, in Nation, CXV (Sept. 13, 1922), 245Google Scholar; Coleman, Men and Coal, 106–08; Hamilton, Walton and Wright, Helen, A Way of Order for Bituminous Coal (New York, 1928), 83–86, 165–81, 340–48Google Scholar.

20 Frederick Underwood in New York Times, April 12, 1922, p. 23; William Lewis, in ibid., Nov. 18, 1923, p. 16; Hamilton and Wright, Way of Order, 115–29, 153–63; George Ashley, “Coal Problem and Its Solution,” Box 1–E/98, Hoover Papers. See also the Watson bill (S. 4490, 70 Cong., 1 Sess.).

21 Proposals of this sort were both numerous and varied. See, for example. Warren Jones, Stabilize Bituminous Coal (1928); Mark Jones, One Way to Stabilize the Bituminous Industry (1927); F. Iredell, “A Scheme for Stabilizing the Coal Industry,” Aug. 24, 1922; J. A. Paisley, “Coal Corporation,” June 8, 1929, Boxes 1–I/354, 1–E/98, Hoover Papers; Hamilton and Wright, Way of Order, 142–52.

22 See McAuliffe, Eugene, in Mining and Metallurgy, CLIX (March, 1920), 56–60Google Scholar; Davis, James J., in Monthly Labor Review, XXII (Jan., 1926), 12–14Google Scholar; Ballou, Walter, in Atlantic Monthly, CXXVIII (Sept., 1921), 852–53Google Scholar; Orchard, John, in Quarterly Journal of Economics, XXXIX (Feb., 1925), 223–40Google Scholar; J. P. Muller, Plan for a Bituminous Coal Exchange, July 23, 1925; F. R. Wadleigh, Proposal for a Coal Institute, June 3, 1924, Boxes 1–I/349, 354, Hoover Papers.

23 Hoover, “Plan to Secure Continuous Employment and Greater Stability in the Bituminous Coal Industry”; Addresses and Statements, Sept. 12, 1922, May 12, 14, 1926; to H. A. Garfield, May 2, 1922; to Julius Barnes, July 22, 1922; to Frank B. Kellogg, Aug. 31, 1922, Boxes 1–I/348, 350, 352, 354, 357, 412, 2–Q/383, Hoover Papers; Hoover, , Memoirs, II, 70Google Scholar; Wadleigh, F. R., “Herbert Hoover and the Coal Industry,” Coal Age, XXXIII (April, 1928), 213–14Google Scholar.

24 Galambos, Competition and Cooperation, 70–80; Nelson, Milton, Open Price Associations (Urbana, 1922), 11–18, 24–28, 90–95Google Scholar; Tosdal, H. R., “Open-Price Associations,” American Economic Review VII (June, 1917), 351–52Google Scholar.

25 Hoover to D. B. Wentz, May 18, 1921; to H. E. Loomis, June 27, 1921; to Joseph Frelinghuysen, June 18, 1921; S. 824 (67 Cong., 1 Sess.) and accompanying memorandum; Hoover to Walter Smith, Jan. 16, 1922; to Walter Newton, Dec. 2, 1921; to C. E. Burroughs, May 19, 1925, Boxes 1–I/291, 348, 350, 352, 355, 357, Hoover Papers; Commercial and Financial Chronicle, June 25, 1921, pp. 2708–09; New York Times, May 20, 1921; Coal Age, XIX (June 23, 1921), 1133Google Scholar.

26 Description of Coal Conferences, June 7–8, 1921; Hoover to Walter Smith, Jan. 16, 1922; to C. E. Burroughs, May 19, 1925; H. E. Loomis to Hoover, June 22, 1921, Boxes 1–I/291, 348, 350, Hoover Papers; T. O. Busbee to C. H. Huston, May 11, 1921; W. J. Willits to Morrow Chamberlain, June 21, 1921; Eugene McAuliffe to C. P. White, July 10, 1931, File 80769, Commerce Dept. Records, National Archives; Commercial and Financial Chronicle, June 25, 1921, pp. 2707–08; New York Times, June 8, 20, 1921. Frelinghuysen's bill was the mildest of several similar proposals. Such measures as the Calder, Newton, and Kenyon bills, all introduced in 1921, ran into even stronger opposition. Congressional Record, 66 Cong., 3 Sess., LX, 1294; 67 Cong., 1 Sess., LXI, 87, 304, 1449, 2758, 3195–99, 5382–83, 6119; F. T. Miller to Hoover, May 13, 1921, Box 1–I/355, Hoover Papers; Coal Age, XIX (March 10, May 26, June 16, 23, 1921), 465, 964, 1067–68, 1089–90, 1133Google Scholar.

27 In the immediate postwar period, the National Coal Association had sponsored a voluntary program and published a number of statistical reports. These activities, however, had failed to generate much enthusiasm and were dropped when the government began its actions against statistical exchanges in the lumber industry. Senate Committee on Manufactures, Publication in Coal, 168–69; Coal Age, XIX (April 21, 1921), 697Google Scholar.

28 Secretary of Commerce, Annual Report (1922), 88–89; Survey of Current Business, Aug. 1, 1921, p. 2; E. E. Hunt, “Washington Conference on Unemployment”; “Department's Cooperation for Distribution Statistics Gathered by Trade Associations,” Boxes 1–I/307, 412, Hoover Papers; W. C. Mullendore to Roy Cheney, Sept. 7, 1922, File 81288, Commerce Dept. Records; American Column and Lumber Co. v. U.S., 257 U.S. 377 (1921); Coal Age, XX (Aug. 18, 1921), 245; XXI (Jan. 5, 1922), 1Google Scholar.

29 Daugherty was cautious and somewhat evasive, but he did agree that data on past transactions could be collected and distributed through the Department of Commerce. Hoover to Daugherty, Feb. 3, 1922; Daugherty to Hoover, Feb. 8, 1922, Box 1–I/308, Hoover Papers; Dept, of Commerce, Trade Association Activities, 262–68.

30 Hoover to Harding, May 3, 1922, with memorandum on letter of Charles Piez; to Walter Edge, June 12, 1922; Edge to Hoover, June 14, 1922; S. 3385 (67 Cong., 2 Sess.); Memorandum on “Coal,” April 16, 1923, Boxes 1–I/273, 309, 347, 354, Hoover Papers; Himmelberg, Robert F., “Relaxation of the Federal Antitrust Policy as a Goal of the Business Community during the Period 1918–1933,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Penn. State U. (1963), 111–14, 118–19Google Scholar; Secretary of Commerce, Annual Report (1922), 8, 26–27; New York Times, July 19, 1921; Coal Age, XXIV (Dec. 27, 1923), 945Google Scholar.

31 Hoover to Frank Kellogg, Aug. 31, 1922, File 80769/3, Commerce Dept. Records.

32 “Coal,” April 16, 1923, Box 1–I/347, Hoover Papers; Gadsby, Margaret, “The Coal Strikes,” Monthly Labor Review, XV (Nov., 1922), 933–37, 950–51Google Scholar; Literary Digest, June 3, 1922, pp. 17–18.

33 Hoover to Irvine Lenroot, June 16, 1922; to Harry Daugherty, July 21, 1922; to E. M. Poston, Aug. 31, 1922; to F. R. Wadleigh, Aug. 24, 1923; “Coal,” April 16, 1923, Boxes 1–I/179, 347, 350, 352, 356, Hoover Papers; Gadsby, “Coal Strikes,” loc. cit., 945–47; Congressional Record, 67 Cong., 2 Sess., LXII, 8525–29; Literary Digest, June 3, 1922, pp. 17–18; New York Times, June 1, 6, 15, 16, July 11, 18, 22, 25, 27, 1922; Coal Age, XXII (Aug. 3, 1922), 177–78Google Scholar.

34 “Coal,” April 16, 1923; Hoover to James Goodrich, Aug. 26, 1922; to Harding, Aug. 23, 1922; H. R. 12472 (67 Cong., 2 Sess.); Gerard Henderson to Hoover, Aug. 17, 1922, Boxes 1–I/347, 349, 356, Hoover Papers; Gadsby, “Coal Strikes,” loc. cit., 947–49; Congressional Record, 67 Cong., 2 Sess., LXII, 11989–90; New York Times, Aug. 16, 18, 23, 1922.

35 Congressional Record, 67 Cong., 2 Sess., LXII, 12058, 12234–35, 12701–02, 13182; 42 U.S. Stat. 1025, Public, No. 348, 67 Cong.; Dept. of Commerce Press Release, Sept. 16, 1922; Federal Fuel Distributor, “Report,” Dec. 27, 1922, Boxes 1–I/347, 349, Hoover Papers; Federal Fuel Distributor, Final Report to the President (1923), 1, 12, 15; New York Times, Sept. 23, 27, 1922.

36 Hoover, “Plan to Secure Continuous Employment and Greater Stability in the Bituminous Coal Industry"; to W. B. Wilson, May 2, 1922; to H. A. Garfield, May 2, 1922; to Arthur Dwight, June 17, 1922; to Julius Barnes, July 22, 1922, Boxes 1–I/348, 354, 357, Hoover Papers.

37 Hoover, “Plan to Secure Continuous Employment and Greater Stability in the Bituminous Coal Industry,” Box 1–1/357, Hoover Papers.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid.

41 Wilson to Hoover, May 12, 1922; Garfield to Hoover, May 6, 1922; Arthur Dwight to Hoover, June 16, 1922; H. H. Stoek to Edwin Ludlow, July 7, 1922; Thomas Clagett to Ludlow, July 1, 1922, Boxes 1–I/354, 357, Hoover Papers.

42 Hoover to Garfield, May 2, 1922; to Barnes, July 22, 1922; to Pritchett, Nov. 18, 1921, Boxes 1–I/348, 354, 407, Hoover Papers; Romasco, Poverty of Abundance, 17; Survey, May 6, 1922, pp. 206–07; Hammond, M. B., “The Coal Commission Reports and the Coal Situation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, XXXVIII (Aug. 1924), 545–48Google Scholar; Congressional Record, 67 Cong., 2 Sess., LXII, 10609, 11538.

43 Hoover to Kellogg, Aug. 31, 1922, File 80769/3, Commerce Dept. Records; U.S. Coal Commission Minutes, Oct. 18, 1922; Feb. 12, 13, 1923, Box 1, Coal Commission Records, National Archives; Congressional Record, 67 Cong., 2 Sess., LXII, 11538, 13182; 42 U.S. Stat. 1023, Public, No. 347, 67 Cong.; Hammond, “Coal Commission Reports,” loc. cit., 545–49; Survey, Nov. 1, 1922, pp. 152–53; New York Times, Aug. 19, Sept. 23, Oct. 11, 1922; Coal Age, XXII (Oct. 26, 1922), 681–82Google Scholar. The other members of the commission were former Vice-President Thomas R. Marshall, Edward T. Devine, editor of the Survey, Charles P. Neill, former commissioner of labor statistics, George Otis Smith, director of the Geological Survey, and Clark Howell, editor of the Atlanta Constitution.

44 Coal Commission, Report, vii–xv, 264–77; Hoover, , Memoirs, II, 70Google Scholar; Hamilton and Wright, Way of Order, 87–96; Hammond, “Coal Commission Reports,” loc. cit., 578–81; Survey, Nov. 1, 1922, p. 150; Nov. 1, 1923, pp. 134–37; Monthly Labor Review, Nov., 1923, pp. 1007–14; New Republic, Oct. 24, 1923, p. 220; Literary Digest, Oct. 6, 1923, pp. 12–13; Black Diamond, Sept. 29, 1923; United Mine Workers Journal, Oct. 1, 1923; E. E. Hunt to Hoover, April 1, 1926, Box 1–I/356, Hoover Papers.

45 Coolidge to Coal Commission, Sept. 11, 1923, Box 11, Coal Commission Records; Hoover to Coolidge, Nov. 17, 1923, Box 1–I/354, Hoover Papers; Hoover, , Memoirs, II, 56, 71Google Scholar. Coolidge's recommendations stressed the need for standby powers, but also suggested that “by encouraging greater unity of ownership, and possibly by permitting common selling agents for limited districts on condition that they accept adequate regulations and guarantee that competition between districts be unlimited, distribution, storage, and continuity ought to be improved.” Congressional Record, 68 Cong., 1 Sess., LXV, 99–100.

46 Hoover to Secretaries of National and State Trade Associations, April 11, 1923, May 10, 1924; to Julius Barnes, Jan. 28, 1924; to C. J. Goodyear, Jan. 26, 1924; to Samuel Winslow, Feb. 20, 1924, Boxes 1–I/308, 347, 349, 356, 357, Hoover Papers; Dickey, Carl, in World's Work, XLVIII (May, 1924), 55–56Google Scholar; Secretary of Commerce, Annual Report (1924), 13–14; Beame, “Jacksonville Agreement,” loc. cit., 196–98; New York Times, April 20, 1924, IX, 10.

47 Coal Age, XXV (May 15, 22, 1924), 737, 765Google Scholar; XXVI (April 16, 1925), 581; XXVIII (Oct. 29, Dec. 17, 1925), 600–02, 848–49; S. P. Hutchinson, in Coal Review, Oct. 1, 1924, p. 4; Willits, “Coal Settlement,” loc. cit., 504–05; Hoover, Memorandum for Coolidge, Oct. 1925; to Joseph Pursglove, Feb. 10, 1925; to J. P. Muller, Aug. 5, 1925; F. R. Wadleigh, Address, June 3, 1924, Boxes 1–I/349, 354, 356, Hoover Papers.

48 Interdepartmental Committee on Coal Statistics, “A Statistical Service for the Coal Industry,” Nov. 28, 1924; Hoover to L. Phipps, April 23, 1926, Boxes 1–I/276, 351, Hoover Papers; Congressional Digest, IV (Nov., 1925), 295Google Scholar.

49 S. 3, S. 4177, H.R. 9223, H.R. 12209, all 69 Cong., 1 Sess.; C. P. White to Hoover, Feb. 25, 1926, Box 1–I/356, Hoover Papers; Congressional Record, 69 Cong., 1 Sess., LXVII, 452, 462, 473, 3828, 5512, 5587, 7553, 8723, 9583; New York Times, Jan. 19, 1926.

50 Hoover, Statement, May 14, 1926; to Everett Sanders, Dec. 22, 1926; Press Release, Jan. 18, 1926; R. D. Williams to Hoover, May 17, 1926, Boxes 1–I/347, 350, 356, Hoover Papers; George Newcomer to Dept. of Commerce, March 19, 1926, File 175, Coolidge Papers, Library of Congress; National Coal Association, Report (Washington, 1926), 6, 21Google Scholar; Congressional Record, 69 Cong., 1 Sess., LXVII, 8314–18, 9600–01, 10061, 11803; New York Times, Feb. 13, May 13, 15, 1926; Coal Age, XXIX (March 4, April 29, May 6, 20, June 24, 1926), 336, 610–11, 643, 739–40, 921Google Scholar; XXXI (Jan. 20, 1927), 85; House Commerce Committee, Coal, 257–88, 384–97, 525–28, 538–39; Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Senate Report 812 (69 Cong., 1 Sess., 1926), 1. According to one report, the blocking of coal bills reflected considerable trading between representatives of the coal states and the backers of the McNary-Haugen bill. The latter agreed to oppose coal legislation in return for support on the farm relief measure. See Paul Wooton, in Coal Age, XXXI (Jan. 27, Feb. 17, 1927), 177, 271Google Scholar.

51 On June 1, 1925, in refusing to strike down the statistical exchanges of the maple flooring and cement industries, the Supreme Court adopted a position similar to the one that Hoover had taken earlier. See Maple Flooring Association v. U.S., 268 U.S. 563, and Cement Manufacturers Protective Association v. U.S., 268 U.S. 588.

52 Harry L. Gandy to Hoover, Jan. 6, 1927, Box 1–I/347, Hoover Papers; Coal Age, XXIX (April 1, June 17, 1926), 477, 874–75Google Scholar; Fowler, C. B., in Survey, LVII (March 15, 1927), 773–74Google Scholar; Colston Warne, in ibid., LXI (Nov. 15, 1928), 221–22; Beame, “Jacksonville Agreement,” loc. cit., 199–202; McDonald, David and Lynch, Edward, Coal and Unionism (Indianapolis, 1939), 168–81Google Scholar; New York Times, Jan. 14, April 3, Aug. 14, 1927; Bernstein, Lean Years, 128–36.

53 Meyer Jacobstein to Hoover, Jan. 6, 1928; American Wholesale Coal Association, “Bulletin 393,” March 13, 1928, Boxes 1–I/347, 356, Hoover Papers; New Republic, March 28, 1928, pp. 179–81; Warne, , in Nation, CXXVI (April 4, 1928), 371Google Scholar; Literary Digest, March 24, 1928, p. 11; Congressional Record, 70 Cong., 1 Sess., LXIX, 928, 1084, 9047; Coal Age, XXXIII (April, Nov. 1928), 219–20, 690Google Scholar; Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, Conditions in Coal Fields, 1341–46; New York Times, March 14, 18, 1928.

54 Jacobstein to Hoover, Jan. 6, 1928; “Brief Analysis of Copeland-Jacobstein Bills”, Jan. 4, 1928, Box 1–I/356, Hoover Papers.

55 Hoover, New Day, 13, 68, 173. Hoover's attitude, however, was criticized by a number of progressives. “If Herbert Hoover expects that he is going to get the support of the coal operators of Pennsylvania,” declared Fiorello LaGuardia, “for remaining idle and voiceless during this terrible crisis, which has been brought about because of the violation by the operators of a contract which Herbert Hoover is responsible for, there are four or five million men and women in the United States who earn their bread by the sweat of their brows, who may have something to say about this thing.” Quoted in New York Times, Feb. 9, 1928, p. 42.

56 As John L. Lewis described the situation in 1928, “The bituminous-coal operators of this country are greatly confused and badly disorganized. There are no outstanding leaders among them. Every man is running his own business. He is reluctant to express a theory or opinion as affecting the industry as a whole, for fear he may trample upon the opinions of some other operator, or run counter to the views of the purchasing agent of some large railroad. He is not a free agent; he is just running with the mob in the industry.” Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, Conditions in Coal Fields, 415. For the similar experience of the cotton textile industry, see Galambos, Competition and Cooperation, 126–38.

57 Coal Age, XXXVII (Jan., March, 1932), 34, 123Google Scholar; Johnson, James P., “Drafting the NRA Code of Fair Competition for the Bituminous Coal Industry,” Journal of American History, LIII (Dec, 1966), 521–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Compare Hoover's discussion in House Commerce Committee, Coal, 528–42, with the appraisal in Fisher and James, Price-Fixing in Bituminous Coal, 307–444.

59 Hoover, , Memoirs, III, 430–31.Google Scholar