Mr. THOMAS E. HODGSON, APRIL 27, 1953. Recording Secretary, Local Union 5936 of the UMW of America, Dacono, Colo. DEAR MR. HODGSON: I appreciate your letter and the support you have expressed toward the legislation, H. R. 4294. I am very much interested in this legislation and assure you it will be a pleasure to help your organization in its program of protecting the use of our own coal over products of foreign countries. I shall see that Congressman Richard Simpson, the author of H. R. 4294, receives the recommendation of your organization, and that it is placed in the committee hearings. Very truly yours, WILLIAM S. HILL. DEER LODGE MINERS' UNION, LOCAL No. 834, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL, AND SMELTERWORKERS, Garrison, Mont., April 23, 1953. The Honorable WILLIAM S. HILL, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. HILL: Attached is a resolution which was adopted by the Deer Lodge Miners Union. I was instructed to mail it to you. Sincerely yours, CHARLES J. HAM, Whereas lead and zinc properties in the United States are being shut down or having their operations curtailed in the midst of the greatest war spending in the history of our country. The crisis in the metals industry likewise has brought layoffs in brass, iron ore, and even copper. Unfortunately, some mine operators are attempting to shift the burden of the present crisis onto the worker. Some companies are using the present crisis as an excuse to undermine established wages and working conditions, the result of which shortsightedness could only be an even graver slump. Our 1952 convention listed the following causes of the crisis in which the industry now finds itself: 1. Monopoly control which has been widely extended to new foreign properties. Production from these new mines, operated with low-wage labor, is now displacing United States and Canadian production. 2. Stockpiling, which gave fantastic profits to the monopolies, created artificial shortages, and boosted prices to record levels from which it was inevitable that they would fall. The artificial shortages also supplied the monopolies with an alibi for grabbing up new foreign mines. 3. Pressure on Western Europe to rearm has brought on a general economic decline in those countries and has shrunken the market for metals over there. 4. The choking off of trade with countries where large potential markets for metals exist. Strong Government action is necessary to: (a) Protect the economic security of both employed and unemployed workers. (b) Protect the interests of small, nonmonopoly operators. (c) Widen domestic and foreign metals markets to increase consumption of lead, zinc, and other metals. Now therefore be it resolved: That Local No. 834 of the International Union of Mine, Milld Smelter Workers at Garrison, Mont., does hereby petition Congress, thr its Representative and United States Senators, to take emergency remedation along the following lines: W skil 1. Adoption of legislation to provide unemployed workers ance over and above present inadequate unemployment comp Removal of present restrictions and waiting periods. 2. Protection of small mine operations through pass legislation. 3. Legislation to expand domestic metals me such as river valley developments, highway trifications. 4. Legislation to broaden world trade for United States metals. STATEMENT FOR SMALL BUSINESS COYOTE My name is Joseph H. Taylor. rice pt 2 per Mexico Miners Association. 1 W ng back into operation as prompt aussie .ere ital arty, ther ment worth In normal times, two-thirds of the Zur produced by our domestic miners aut per is not our wish to prohibit the importation e importation and protect our domestic mine this proportion is perfectly proper a of zinc while the price was 15 cents cooperated with Congress in permitting ear the price was 18 cents. From Degene metals increased 80 percent. At present any way protect the domestic in us zinc consumed in this coun is quite likely that many the Nation placed in a cr We have had a seriou ing 60 percent of the d mining industry was f and domestic consum port tax would be a price and at the sam To sum up, the e low wage scales ha Hundreds of men State are closed worse a Mr. JOSEPH TAYLOR, Silver City, N. Mex. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Silver City, N. Mex., April 16, 1953. DEAR MR. TAYLOR: We, in the Silver City-Grant County Chamber of Commerce, are quite concerned over the economic effects felt in this area due to the present unstable zinc situation. The steady decline in zinc prices have created a hardship on the zinc operators in this area as well as the merchants who are serving this territory. Our records indicate that in 1952 there were 1,200 employed in the zinc mines in Grant County. Today, there are approximately 323 employees, of which 135 are on production of zinc and the remainder on maintenance and exploration or development work. Obviously, the shutdown of these mines affect a great deal more than the actual number unemployed. Please rest assured we will do everything in our power to help you to obtain an equitable price for zinc so that our zinc mines can reopen. Very truly yours, THOMAS W. MCCABE, President. Mr. JOSEPH TAYLOR, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, Vice President, Peru Mining Company, Hanover, N. Mex. DEAR MR. TAYLOR: We are very glad to furnish you with the information requested concerning the present economical conditions in the Grant County-Silver City area. The Silver City area covers Grant and Hidalgo Counties in southwest New Mexico. The principal industrial activities of the area are copper, lead, and zinc mining. All of these mines, with the exception of one, Banner Mining Co., are located in a radius of 16 miles of the town of Sliver City in Grant County. The Banner Mining Co. is near Lordsburg, 50 miles southwest in Hidalgo County. There are approximately 18,000 acres of cultivated agricultural land in Hidalgo County. The economy of this area is dependent on the price of copper, lead, and zinc. 55 percent of all nonagricultural wage and salary employment is normally accounted for by these mining companies. The population of Grant and Hidalgo Counties was 24,971 in 1940, 26,744 in 1950, and is estimated at 27,000 at present. Present nonagricultural wage and salary employment of 4,797 is 24 percent below March 1952, and 14.5 percent below January 1953. This decrease is directly due to a drop in the price of lead and zinc, which caused the closing of 7 mines, and the completion of 2 small road-construction projects. The employment reduction has indirectly caused a decrease in trade and service establishments. The lumber industry, employing approximately 100 has been able to continue operating, while in 1952, due to deep snows, employment was reduced to a minimum. Since March 1952, 950 workers have been laid off by the mining industry. 431 of these layoffs have occurred since January 1953. About 10 percent of these workers have left the area. Some have found work in other areas, while others are returning here, unable to find employment elsewhere. The outlook for the next 2- and 4-month periods is not good. No mining firms, except Kennecott Copper and Phelps Dodge Corp., which are both copper mines, were willing to give an estimate of employment for these future periods. No local action has been taken to relieve the manpower situation for this area. Yours very truly, RAY S. STRICKLAND, Manager, Silver City Local Office, New Mexico State Employment Service. Hon. WILLIAM S. HILL, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Chairman, House Small Business Committee, Old House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am enclosing herewith a letter I have received from Mr. Roger W. Kyle, owner of the Kyle Asbestos Mines of Arizona, dated April 30, together with his enclosure. I will appreciate your adding this material to the transcript of the hearings of the Phoenix, Ariz., meeting. Sincerely yours, ABRAHAM J. MULTER. KYLE ASBESTOS MINES OF ARIZONA, DEAR SIR: I regret not having had the opportunity to give the subcommittee my views as to why the 50-50 plan didn't go over with the small-mine owners at your meeting in Phoenix. There are several reasons. You came out to Arizona to see what was wrong and get our side. In the first place, the small-mine owners could not meet a 50-50 proposition and, in the second place, there is no incentive for anyone to work or sell his property. If he operates his mine and makes a profit the Government takes 50 percent of the profit; if he works it, doesn't find any good ore, and loses his money, the Government doesn't care. If he sells his mine the Government takes 70 percent of what he made by reason of the sale. The Government doesn't realize that mining is a very risky gamble; one can't see what is underground. If a hole is dug and nothing found, your money is gone and the hole a complete loss-nothing to salvage. Now take cattle raising, farming, and manufacturing. You may not make a profit but you still have the investment left for the next year. In mining, if you do hit ore, when it is mined out your investment is gone, while the farmer may raise a better crop next year or the manufacturer improve the factory. But the damn fools who made the tax law figured every time a hole was dug, one would sure hit a lot of rich ore. I have a mine which I am unable to sell. If I do, the Government will take 70 percent, and the man who bought would have to pay an income tax of 70 percent. This income tax, together with tax on supplies, has killed the mining industry. At the meeting above referred to, 95 percent of the mining people who were there want money to finance the working of their mines. People with capital are looking for good investments and are willing to gamble on mining property, but if one makes anything the Government takes 70 percent income tax, together with a tax of 50 percent on all supplies. Another feature: One has to spend $100 per claim (20 acres) for assessment work yearly. Cattlemen get 40 acres for $2 per year and a yearling that is worth $100. Who put this unreasonable tax on mining? Our Congressmen. Why? Because they are controlled by the manufacturers who want all raw material from foreign countries dumped in the United States on top of our raw material, and compete with cheap foreign labor. Part of our taxes go to Africa and other foreign countries to develop their mines. The people in Africa do not buy any of these manufactured goods-they wear G-strings. People are investing in farming, cattle, and manufacturing, and lots of other industries, but not in mining. Why? First, undeveloped mines are a gamble. You can't see underground; your investment can be 100 percent loss. Because of that, profit tax that is fair for other industries is very unfair when applied to undeveloped mines. So go back to Washington, put in H. R. 2863, bill to eliminate income tax for 5 years, on undeveloped mines, as well as on the sale of mining property. Then private capital will invest money in mines. With the burden now evisting a small-mine owner can't sell his property because he doesn't get any of the profit; he barely gets his money back that he spent on the mine, and he hasn't any money to work the property. That is the reason there isn't any activity in small mines today. I wish you would put this letter in the minutes of the Phoenix meeting held March 28. There wasn't time for all of us to express our views as you requested. Yours very truly, ROGER Q. KYLE. STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY KYLE ASBESTOS MINES OF ARIZONA, GLOBE, ARIZ. Recent articles in various publications have discussed possible changes in the laws covering the holding and retaining of mining claims. It is my opinion and belief that certain changes are necessary, and it appears urgent that a bill be introduced and passed including these changes which would have the effect of stimulating the mining industry. When the present laws were put into effect they served the purpose. That was when a prospector located a couple of claims; there were surface showings or outcrops that he worked for ore he could mine and sell, but that day has gone. At that time he had 2 or 3 claims, because nothing but high-grade ore could be mined and packed out to the railroads. In mining his high-grade ore he did his assessment work, $100 per claim, which was right and proper at that time, but that was before low-grade ore was ever thought of being mined productively. Now, when new methods of recovering low-grade ore prevail, a company would not think of buying 2 or 3 claims to operate. Present-day operating companies are looking for large deposits, in 20- to 100-claim areas, of 1- and 2-percent ore. That being the case, it would be impossible for a small company to do that much assessment work per year much less a prospector. If I understand the requirements correctly, before a claim is eligible for patenting, it is necessary to show mineral in place, and that the applicant has spent in development work on this claim the sum of $500. If this is true, why cannot the claimholder be allowed to pay the taxes on that claim and stop digging "10-foot holes"? Why can't the claimholder pay a tax on his claims comparable to the cattleman's grazing fee after the claimholder has spent $500 per claim over a period of 5 years proving up his claims? The reason so few claims are patented is that after the locator has spent $500 in development, it will cost him about $400 to get it patented. Since the claims have to be surveyed for patenting, I believe the claimholder should have it made possible for him to pay taxes on his claims, whether patented or not. Some deputy, engineer, recorder, or other official could take the measurements to determine whether the required $500 had been spent in development work. Part of the taxes collected from these eligible claims could be used to pay the engineer or other official examining the claims to determine whether the required work had been done. The amount of money it costs today to have a claim patented is exorbitant. Few can afford to pay it, especially a prospector. Many people holding claims who have been able to sell their ore in the past, will find they cannot sell it any more because manufacturers can get it from foreign countries, where labor is cheaper, for much less. But why should they have to sit and wait for another war? Yet they have to do this $100-per-claim assessment work on each and every claim every year, and they are unable to sell the ore they take out while doing the assessment work. Why can't he pay the tax, patent or no patent, and stop digging 10-foot holes that do not benefit the property. Why doesn't the Government give the claimholder a title the same as granted a homesteader without having the claim patented? One hundred dollars per year is a large tax on a claim for the privilege of trying to find some valuable shipping ore. When a claimholder develops his claim and starts to shipping ore, he will pay a tax the same as other mines are doing today. In taxing nonproducing claims the valuation should not exceed $100 per claim. The present mining laws pertaining to the holding of mining claims are the most ridiculous laws we have. If a bill can be put up to correct the injustice upon claimholders, there will be plenty of capital available from interested investors. Of course, the claimholder located his claim to try and promote a sale. Well, what is wrong with that? Everybody is trying to promote a deal in some kind of business and you can't expect a prospector to work a big mine. Promotion is necessary to raise money to mine with, the same as real estate dealers and any other business. There are very few mining deals made where the claims have been patented before the sale to the big operator. When a man take up a homestead, he has certain requirements to meet before he can prove up on it and sell it. But when he meets those requirements, he generally keeps on making improvements for his own use or so he can sell it. A claimholder will naturally do the same thing. Several years ago the Government helped the cattlemen and farmers; bought the cattle and hogs and then killed them. They paid the farmer for his cotton and then plowed up every other row. Now, for a comparison of other rentals on Government land, we will take the cattleman. It takes 40 acres of land in the forest for a cow to graze on to live. |