Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1893-10-21
n Brief Review.

ing if it were not so absurd. In one SEN
tence it admits that "of all the workers under
the domain of so,called protection ours have
been most Fortunate" and in another that
they are the victims of unfairness, and that
they are Disseminated against in the adjust
ment of the tariff, illustrating its allegation
by the statement that the weaver is protected
to the extent of 80 per cent. of his product
while the miner is only protected to the eX-
tent of % per cent.-Cumberland News
The Neacs' kindred senses Of the
ludicrous and ridiculous are too acute.
Smiling without occasion and plying
without cause are demonstrations
which place a great strain on real
sympathetic etiquette.
Hence, when the JOURNAL says the
tariff makers discriminate against the
miners and the mine-owners favor the
miners with all that the tariff makers
allow, there is nothing to inspire the
Ne~s with levlty nor commiseration.
The tariff maker and our mine-own-
err are two distinct individuals. The
one declares the dividend to which the
miner is entitled the other is the me-
dunn through whom the dividend is
transmitted. The vices of the former
must not be charged to the latter, nor
the virtues of the mine-owner credited
to the tariff maker.
Hence, when the JOURNAL has said
the miner was unfairly treated, it
means that the tariff maker did it;
when he is justly and honestly dealt
with, it means that the mine-owner
does it.
For the tariff-maker to give the
weaver 80 per cent. protection and the
miner 25 per- cent. is division so unfair
that in any other system of equitable
heirship it would be called robbery.
But for the mine-owner to give the
miner all of the % per cent. allotted to
him is according honor to whom honor
is due.
The Neaos says if the JOURNAL will
cease its hair-splitting, and take pract-
cal view of the operation of so intricate meas
IRE as the tariff. it would discover two things,
namely:
l, That the primary object OF tariff, from
the republican standpoint, is the protection
of labor.
2, That fla IS per cent. tariff on coal will
secure the miner rate of wages equal, (and
it really is better,) to that paid the weaver
under 80 per rent. tariff on his manufactured
product, the inequality is only apparent, and
injustice is done neither interest. On the
contrary, the very object and purpose of the
protective system is attained.
We will first take the latter PROPOSE
ton and premise by saying it ''proves
too much" 1t assumes
/, That the weaver gets all of his 80
per cent, and
., Contradicts that assumption by
admitting that the miner, with only
% per cent, gets better wages than the
weaver.
Our contention that labor, as rule,
uoCo HoL Stl 'tll Illt itlI III prov lUtS LOT
it could hardly be better borne out ex-
cept by showing that it was never in
tended to be the real beneficiary of
high tariff.
We ask the reader now to scan care
fully the Ne,cs' first proposition, de-
tining "the primary object of tariff,
from q republican standpoint," and then
reflect upon the following bit of
history:
During the discussion of the McKin-
ley bill its supporters so persistently
declared their concern for labor and
their purpose to establish and main
tain high wages under that bill that
democrat at last put their sincerity to
crucial test. He offered an amend
ment to the effect that sail increases Of
duty under this act shall be CONDITIONED
upon corresponding increases in aoages ~
That is to say, whenever an employ
er actually paid the cages that the tariff
gaze him for his men, then, and then
only, they were to ENJOY the protection
which the bill provided.
1t was proposal as fair and just as
was ever made.
Moreover, it proposed to secure to
labor beyond all possibility of miscar-
riage the wages due labor under the
tariff.
What was the result :?
Tell it not in Cumberland, nor pub
llsh it in the streets of Homecoming!
1t aoas ooted doaon By the usual high pro-
lection majority!
Now, where is your primary object
of a tariff from a high protection
standpoint?"
The Ne,os vouchsates some more in
formation
The equalization of the percentage of duty
is an impracticable democratic theory A
Mr.. Morrison, of Illinois, once prepared a
measure based upon the idea of a simple
dd 0dtorem duty of so much per cent. on all
importations but the Congress refused to
take his proposition seriously, laughed his.
"horlzontal bill' to scorn, and dispatched its
author tothe "Chltern Hundreds" where he
has since remained chatting in his enforced
retirement
The JOURNAL is not sure that the