Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1893-07-22
why these Differences?

tenacously to the contention that coal is only
protected incidentally or theoretically; that
the tariff on that article is down to the
revenue basis, and is therefore not protec-
tive.-Cumberland AcwS.
The JOURNAL does not employ the
adverb, Theoretically as syn
onymous with ''incidentally." Nor
does it say that a revenue-basis rate is
"not protective"
1t does contend that all the protec-
ton coal enjoys is under revenue
basis rate, and that. therefore, the
tariff on coal is not speciality protective.
To meet what the JOURNAL has not
affirmed the Ne,cs goes on to say:
Now tariff for revenue only affords no
protection, and hence if IS cents ton does
not prevent foreign competition our coal is
virtually on the free list. On this point our
coal operators do not agree with the great
paper. They accept 10 cents per ton AS
sufficient, and as they are the parties chiefly
interested they ought to know.
That "a tariff for revenue only af-
fords no protection" is conclusion
for which the Ne,os is accountable.
The 70 cents per ton rate on coal
does prevent foreign competion,"
but partially SO only. Were the rate
levied specially to protect coal, it
would prohibit foreign competition.
While, therefore, the Ne,cs may
think the revenue basis and the free
list are equivalent conditions the fact
Is otherwise. Coal is no more free
list commodity than hides are rev.
enue basis article.
If the coal operators disagree with
the JOURNAL upon this subject they
have not before said so, and if they
have renewed their acceptance of IS
cents per ton it is because New
England will allow them no more.
There was once a good reason why
Jack did did not get all the supper he
wanted.
But the operators know that if the
tariff on coal had been wholly pro-
tective that million tons of foreign
coal would not haye come in during
the year just closed.
They know, too, that if they had
enjoyed the consideration accorded to
their customers-the wool men, it
wouid not be in the power of the wool
men to-day to threaten the little pro-
lection coal has.
Buff they do not know these things,
the JOURNAL is looking forward to a
possible time when they will see that
if there IS a wall Of fire behind which
they may stand secuIe for the little
they have, that impossible fortress is
coal is alreody do,cn to tie recenue basis rate.
Again:
The JOURNAL says that focal was protected
to the full extent that wool is it should bring
Si.5S per ton in New York instead of 1925
But is the JOURNAL not aware that when the
tariff on coal was fixed at IS cents 1t was
bringing 1928 per ton in New York city?
The tariff on wool is fixed at 50 much per
pound al g'orem. On coal it has always
''SNl llN''a ttL ~ IllltCIl lDll lluOul
to price, and this was the suggestion of those
most interested
Very well if $l.25 pert protected
coal to pitch Of 1925, the reduction
to protective rate of 80 cents per ton
would have brought it down to 10
IN New York. Compromised at IS
cents, however, the price should be
not less than $315.
But why was coal too high at s. 25
Why did 1.-The cart get before the
horse in that a high price led the way
to the abolition Of its cause instead of
the cause continuing in the lead in full
force as well as virtue?
We will answer:
The New York and New England
patrots-slmon.pure protectionists of
all-American wool, yard wide, scant
30 inches for yard-wanted lust
enough free trade in home-dug coal to
bring 1t down to a point Just above
the lowwater mark of the British pro-
duct.
AS manufacturers they are DR..
Jekylls; as consumers Mr.. Hydes.
Next-will the Neaos state aohy ''the
tariff on wool is fixed at so much per
pound ad calorem ?" and ION coal at so
much per ton ?" 1t is not sufficient
to say sit isl il the one case and "has
always BEEN in the other.
To make this palmer, let us take the
farmers who raise both wool and
wheat-why protect their wool adj
oat0rem and their wheat at % cents per
bushel9
The only answer to this question so
far is--''this was the suggestion of
those most lnterested.'
When did the farmers suggest this ?
And why did they discriminate against
wool and favor wheat, or oice cersa?
Really, the Ners must account for
this tariff vagary in some other way.
The great paper must remember while deal
ing in speculation and theory, that no Just
comparison can be instituted between an
article paying an al palorem duty and an
article paying fixed rate per ton. 1t must
take practical view of the operations of the
tariff, and so long as the duty fixed operates
as a protection it answers ali the purpOSe for