Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1890-11-08
MINING JOURNAL.
FRosTBURG, MD, NOVEMBER :. $50.
Bad Case Of FiindSi"ht.

Bad Case Of tfinuSiGht.
The Missing JOURNAL is succeeding al
mrably up to date in the "wrigglc act. ~
To say that McKaig was not in earnest
about the mine ventilation bill judging
solely from an unprotected and uupurchas
able standpoint, would be as unfair as false
after man had devoted several years of his
life to antagonizng the most powerful in
terests in his section of the State. Whether
he was Disguised or not he can best answer
that question, but so far as showing that dis
gust by word or act while pushing the bill in
the face Of the determined opposition of the
coal monOpolists and their hired "bg four
witnesses, it is absolutely untrue. We want
to see McKaig elected over McComas for more
reasons than that he advocated the miner
ventilation BILL and they are because he is in
favor of low tariff, home rule, and an oppor-
tunity for the worker to make living. If
McComas stood on the same plane we would
have nothing to say as between the two
candidates; but McComas, like the JOURNAL,
seems to be on the side where the weight
consists of heavier stuff than the blacl;
diamonds, honesty in government, or regard
for the peoples Baltimore Clitjc
"Unprejudiced and unpurchasable"
is good. 1t is such cool. fresh piece
of egotism.
And, then, the Critic'S veracity con-
corning an event over two years old is
so much superior to the JoURNAL'S
observations, made at the time
Again-if Mr.. Mckaig's work in
pushing the bill' was concentrated
in the effort made by him before the
House Committee, he deserved still
less at so-caled labor's hands than we
gave him credit for. We had ALWAYS
understood that he delivered speech
of Xtra-tremendouS voltage in the
Senate-out of sight and hearing OF
''the coal monopolists and their hired
"big four" witnesses and thus got
the bill through that body. For which
so-called labor owed him some con
sideration.
But when he faced The Big / and
the mine-owners his rasping voice be
came tender as the loving coo of Il
dove ad his ignorance of the merits of
the bill was confessedly unlimited.
The critic has. therefore. lost the
tablet of its little memory, or it is Jest
ing when it lmpeaches at this late day
the accuracy of the JOURNALS picture
of that famous meeting. Perhaps it
will affirm with equal emphasis that
James A Cunningham did not make
an immense speech on that occasion
in contrast with which Mr.. McKaig's
Disguised tone and compromising adj
missions were mere whispers.
For it is certain that Cunningh am
was the hero of that occasi0n-not
Mckaig. 1t is equally certain that the
JOURNAL last year opposed Cunning
ham for the House of Delegates for al
most the identical reason in that con-
nection that it did not favor Mckai%
this year for Congress.
But the critic did not impeach the
JOURNALS report last year in behalf
of Cunningham it did not do so when
that report was fresher 1t has gone
on over two years suffering the jour
NAILS statement to be accepted by
everybody as true--lt has gone on in
this direction until it is too latc-en-
tirely too late to dispose of it by de-
nouncing it as absolutely untrue"
The critic is tolerably smart, quite
tricky, but entirely too subsequent.