Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1893-06-24
n Slight Review.

lSIl AFTER prOtraCteu struggle IL ndu pic
viousy been S1.5o, but that was when the
price of Georges Creek coal ranged from 50 to
81 per ton in the eastern market; when as
high as 81 per ton was paid for mining, and
when both railroad and canal freights were
double what they are today. The Sl.5O rate
ruled when prices of everything were alb
normally high, the result of the natural in
hat:on of currency created by four years of
war When the tariff on coal was reduced,
the country was undergoing settling process,
everything was coming down and prices gen.
orally were being re-adjusted to meet speedy
return to specie payments.
The JOURNAL has always learned
that high tariffs preceded and maintained
high wages, but it appears now
that the tariff of 1871 had to come
down because coal, freights, and eeen
cages, were ''abnormally high !"
"When the tariff on coal was re-
duced, too, the country was under
going settling process, everything COM
ing doun," etc.-''a the natural results
of war infation,' etc.
Can anybody tell why the high-price
people, then in full control, yielded to
low price pressure, and thus failed to
save themselves the labor and stultifi-
cation eighteen years later of enacting
Mckinley bill to re-instate war prices
when the war was no longer pretext?
And why did they not put coal in a
more secure position at the same time
they placed ecerything else on the up
grale?
The Necs explains hardly enough.
Again:
Hon. John Richie, who figured con-
spicuousy in the battle to maintain the duty
at point where it would protect our coal
trade. always contended that rs cents was a
satisfactory rate, and it is admitted by all the
coal operators of the various bituminous
regions that at the prices which have ruled
in the markets of the east for the past Is
years, the protection has been ample.
Did not $1.25 (''$l'50" is an error
''protect our coal trade?
If not, how was $50 cents" to protect
it bettere
And if IS cents is better than so
cents, why was $l.25 not better than
either9
We think Mr.. Richie was misun-
derstood. If rs cents was "conten-
ton" of his, it was forced one. The
JOURNAL remembers distinctly hearing
him say that ''75 cents was CON-
promise rate" and people who recollect
his sturdy fight against such men as
Gen. Garfield and Mr.. Dawes can easily
see that he had uphill work to save coal
from going down to so cents per ton.
He took the best possible rate he could
get and he got that grudgingly.
1t is more than likely, also, that ''the
coal operators" have been misappre-
hended. These gentlemen could not
have designed during the period named
to say that ''the prices which have
ruled in the markets" established or
maintained any corresponding rate of
"protection."
To have done so would be to
acknowledge that prices of coal are,
after all, independent of protection"
They would have, moreover, contra
dicted their averments before Congress
ional committees that protection is
Indispensable to good wages, and
everybody knows that good wages
means good prices for coal, for coal is
one of the things that cannot be cheap
ened by paying big money for devel-
oping it.
They could not "admit" at one time
during the same period that 'protec-
ton" is ample at ruling prices, and at
another that ruling prices arc depend
ent upon protection"
They could not admit" to the Nescs
that ruling prices are cause, 'pro-
lection" the effect, and contend before
Congress that protection" is the cause
and prices the effect.
Let us quote further:
To maintain the duty at IS cents the efforts
of every interest involved have been ceaseess.
Under its stimulating influence there has
been the most wonderful development
Virginia and West Virginia have gotten
place in the markets of the east, and their
coal product, perhaps equals in quantity the
entire consumption of the country at the
time the tariff was fixed at IS cents a ton
Yes, they had to fight the Allison
bill of 1888 like fury to get local, slack
or culm" off its free list, and it was
taken off only to save Mr.. McComas'
political neck in Maryland and Mr.
COTS in West Virginia But for the
uplifted guilotines in these two cases
the Stimulating influence" of so much
wonderful development" would be
glimmering in the far-off there and
there.
But how strange it appears that,
with the high protectionists controll-
ing either half of Congress or the
Presidency ever since 1872, "every
(coaD interest involved has had to
fight for its life with "ceaseless eff
fort flight for its life in the very
''house of its friends" We would not
believe tiff the record, confirmed by the
Neos, did not embalm it. AS revela-