Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1893-10-28
IT Does Regulate Wages.


should be swept away? Certainly not.
The JOURNAL is making some pro-
gress.
It has never before been able to eXtort
any sort of confession that "labor, as
rule, does not get all the tariff provides
for it,"
But it has the acknowledgment now
that its contention is correct-in part.
The JOURNALS then asked-"is that
any fault of the system -
We are obliged to answer that it Is.
A system whose express object is to
protect labor falls very far short of
accomplishing its mission if 1t does
not follow its purpose from source
to destination.
If government were to ''protect"
society by merely supplying the costs
of that protection, society would be in
a bad way.
But government not only provides
the means; it sets forth the ways, and
keeps its iron grip upon the trans
gressor to the last hour of punishment.
The second question is inapt. because
no such thing as sweeping away all
protection is proposed, or can be pro-
posed.
The plan of this article compels us
now to quote the platitudes. the italics
being ours:
The republican proposition is that a general
system of protection by import duty on
foreign manufactures creates conditions
favorable to the development of home in
dustries, and in that sense is the greatest
bulwark and protection to labor The "iSest
economists hesitate on approaching the line Of
interference between employer aud employed upo"
the question Of the remuneration Of hobor.
When government, by wise policy, lays the
foundation of national prosperity; when it
creates conditions favorable to the develop
ment of manufactures by placing restrain
ing hand upon outside competition, it has
done its entire duty, and very properly leaves
the business relations Of employer and employed
to be settled by the parties interested in
That there may be no mistake con-
corning the Ne,os' meaning, we will add
four more lines:
No authority on political economy that we
ever read-unless it be the Frostburg } oURNAL
sets up the theory that the tariff ~o"ld,
could or should regulate cageS.
1t also says that the democrat in the
Congress of 1890 who proposed to
condition the benefits of the tariff upon
the honesty and integrity of the en-
ployer dld it for ''claptrap and bun
combe that, if his proposal had been
adopted, he would have '.probadly voted
against the measure" and, last of all
that
A tariff law, with the door open to eXcep-
tons and conditions of this kind. would have
been about as foolish and impractical piece
Of legislation as ever was devised.
The strongest link in this chain Of
indictments is that which charges an
attempt to have the tariff "regulate
wages" with being, not only insincere,
but "foolish and impractical
Yet the Neacs in June last explained
at some length that the tariff on coal
was reduced IN 1871 because coal, ,tleights
and MINING WAGES rere "aJnOrmally
Mghm
In this instance the tariff change
stepped in between the employer and
employed, not only in the mines, but
on the railroads, and also between the
man who sells and the man who buys
coal.
The tariff was not then tie shy, re-
firing, hesitating personality that the
Neacs pictures now, nor was it a "fool
ish and impractical piece of legisla-
ton 1t was reduced to bring dozen
the price Of coal and the rate Of mining
cages, and it did its perfect work
In the JOURNALS judgment, there
fore, there is no good reason sustain
ing the inference that the amendment
was offered in bad faith.
Had it been adopted, it would have
been glorious gift to labor. 1t would
have been millions for labor-not a
cent for Doodle.
Nor is it "foolish and impractical"
Under the systematic oversight of a
man like Carroll D. Wright, assurance
of a strict compliance with the law
would have been doubly assured, and
no matter aohether employers acailed Hom-
selces Of tie condition or not, labor would
have gotten directly or indirectly the
vast bonus which the tariff realizes in
its name and behalf, but which goes
somewhere else.
A shining example of the truth of
our contention is illustrated right in
our own region. Here that "claptrap,
6uncom6e" proposition is practically in FIJI
force. Here all that the tariff provides
is given by our mine-owners to their
miners-given to class protected only
in the rate of % per cent, yet getting
better wages than classes for whom
government has provided more than
three times the amount of protection
The difference between the Ne,cs
notion and the JOURNALS view is this
the Ne,cs holds that government can
provide its benefactions, but cannot