Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1893-07-08
There Is But One Thing to Do.

The JOURNAL uncOnSclOuSly, we presume
argues in favor of absolute free coal when il
refers to the tanner and shoemaker using raw
material to great advantage in the production
of his business. The JOURNAL says "boots
and shoes are the cheapest necessities avail.
able to the people, because they are THE only
articles of wear whose base is not taxed"
We can assure the great paper that free coal
will give our people many other articles very
greatly cheaper, but it might take away our
power to purchase at all. Who would be
benefited then? What is the use of exceed
ingly cheap goods if we have no means at all
with which purchase ?-Cumberland News.
The JOURNAL is perfectly aware of
all it is doing.
1t has not, does not and will not adj
vocate free coal as long as tariff on
anything else exists. And in some
ratio the tariff will last forever.
What it questioned was this-why
should the miner "stand or fall" with
his blanket-maker, and let his shoe
maker look out for himself?
The trouble with the Nescs all along,
however, is it's assumption that coal is
protected, which in any special sense, is
a mistake.
Coal is protected incidentally only.
1t was specially protected once, but
the Congress of 1872 reduced it to the
revenue basis rate, after coming very
near getting it within step of the
free list.
Now, then, what the JOURNAL OBJ
jects to is the contention that miners
must insist upon system which COM
peis them to pay for the maintenance
of special protection to related in
dustries and not claim the same con-
sideration for their own labor?
Epecially so when the blanket
maker, with whom the miner should
"stand or fall" is among the most
rabid howlers for free coal7
There must be, then, something
fundamentally wrong, not to say
wicked, in a system that forces miners
into continuous life.saving service
for rescue of particular class of their
avowed enemies.
The Ne,os' three concluding sem
fences, then, are fully answered in the
fact, as before stated, that coal is not
specially protected.
Hence, there is no ground for its two
questions.
But if there is, why does not the
Neos clamor for a tariff on hides. so
the incidentally protected miner can
have some other specially protected
interest to stand by and thus pay more
for his boots and shoes?
For if the miner thinks he is getting
more work by standing by" other in
terests and paying high prices for
what they furnish him, it would seem
that the more of this sort of thing he
can do the better he will be off.
The situation, then, is this:
Wool is highly protected.
Coal incidentally protected.
Hides are free.
Wooden goods are costly.
Leather goods are cheap.
Coal is called upon to stand by that
interest that costs it the most.
But the JOURNAL thinks that what
eyer fight coal has to make, if any,
that fight should be waged strictly
upon its own merits.
1t is not, like wool, perennial crop.
Once gone, it is gone forever. The
value of the land which overlies it,
once bereft of mineral value, IS vastly
deprecated, although good as ever for
wool culture.
We have good cause and strong
case. There is no virtue nor force of
such quality in the claims of any other
product upon governmental has-
banlry. In the whole realm of in
dustrial materials it is the only one
economically entitled to the little pro-
lection it has and righteously merit
orious of more.