Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1882-04-08
TIE Oakland Democrat is pleased


tude toward the subject Of wages. 1t
thinks we are partial-too partial
to the miners Of this rsgion-a peo-
pie who by implication it supposes
are no better than the miners of Clear
field and Elk Garden, and, possibly,
Hsyersdale.
The JOURNAL editorial which the
Democrat notices in the above con-
nsotion was headed "Good Influences
of Good Wages" The proposition
was maintained as sslf-evident, and
therefore, unanswerable, if not un-
dsbatable. The Democratic reply
proves all that was claimed-by mis-
construction of the text and refer
ences to matters which did not ap-
pear at all.
Let us briefly try the editor of the
Democrat by his own logic. he says:
The ar ticle in question is partial and
biased In favor of the miners We pre-
sumo that the editor is unconsciously
one sided because he declares he wishes
only justice; but to the disinterested
RAIDER 1t Is very evident that his zeal for
the miner OF coal warps his mind on their
side.
Granted. Is the Democrat "par-
tial and biased id favor Of the" COM
paniss2 Or is he, too, Unconscious
ly one-sided2" Is he a democrat,
and does he publish a democratic
paper simply because che wishes
only justice" or is it his zeal" for
democrats that "warps his mind on
their side?' Suppose he is all Of
them, is it not his right and duty to
maintain his convictionsP
The burden of bis theme seems to be
that the miners Of the Cumberland region
are more cultivated class of men than
that of Clearfeld mines, and, that there
fore, they require more wages.
Not at all. "The burden Of the
theme" was more wages" would
bring more comfort, more education,
etc.
Far be It from us to wilfully undcrrate
the mental, moral or even spiritual capac-
ity oftho men of this region but the fact
still confronts this argument OF the editor
of that paper, that men OF at least ordina-
rlly developed minds, whose capacities re-
quire appropriate mental food, dig Goa! at
Elk Garden mines for so cents per ton,
and earn from 50 to $3.50 per day. We
have personal knowledge of these facts,
and hence must consider our brothers.
defence an exceedingly weak one.
This means that these people dig
from six to seven tons of coal during
from ten to twelve hours Of daylight.
Would it not be better for these men
to get the same pay for less sacrifice ?
What time have they outside the
mine for mental Improvement or
the duties of citizenship?
Again, the ministers of America, 1t
will be conceded, IRE, as class, more Gull
tivated In the different faculties of mind,
and hence, according to the logic of our
contemporary, require more food, and if
food, more money to purchase the same;
and yet the average salary OF the minister
in this country is only $500 per year, per
month $418, per week about $40, and per
day about $3.50. About the same show
ing can be made for school teachers and
in other branches of life.
Inasmuch a. we made no such
argument it would seem useless to
reply to it. Suppose, however, that
the average pay Of ministers was
$1,000 yearly, would they not be able
to study and preach better ? Or, if
money be the protested object, would
it not be better for ministers to turn
miners? As to teachers: We have
repeatedly heard the argument set
up in this county that the pay is so
small that teachers hare not time to
develop themselves and advance
parallel with the growing require
ments Of the profession. Either they
are right or wrong, or the Democrat
is in the same prsdicament.
An authority on political economy Is
quoted to sustain the elltor's position,
but the contrary is true OF that author.
This refers to the quotation from
McCulloch's Political Economy. Why
the editor did not sustain "the con-
trary" by citation is not stated,
although the remarkable declaration
follows:
No one wishes servile labor, but wishes
rather to exalt society by paying as much
wages for labor as is possible In the nature
of things, but II is not shown in the arti-
Gle that the companies are claiming more
than is due them, True the assertion is
made but this is not proof.
"Not proof?"-on our side. Yet
l.. II o,atond that NJ MoCnI