Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1894-02-10
Those Unanswerable Vagarles.

JOURNAL.' but nobody can tell what
the JOURNAL has deserted.
1t speaks elsewhere of a remarkable
change of attitude upon the tariff"
but nobody else can fairly discover it..
There was nothing in the JOURNALS
language or tone to warrant the refer
ence to association with the "almoners
of federal patronage
In this connection the JOURNAL,
again assures the Ners that there is
nothing whatever in the way of patron
age-federal, State, or municipal, that
the JOURNAL wants, can get, will have,
or can take.
If there is mo sense in voting for the pro-
lection of home article that has no foreign
competition and can have none" why did
the JOURNAL make fools GRAND" to Wash
ington in order that its powerful voice might
be heard in the effort to convince demo-
cratic House that there ,rds good sense in
retaining tariff on home article that
"neither has nor can have foreign COMPETE
tion?''
The answer is plain-the JOURNAL
did no such thing.
When the JOURNAL was talking of
McKaig's vote to place Tom Johnson's
steel rails on the free list-an article
"that has no foreign competition and
can have none," it was not saying
anything about coal, which, I'M
fortunately, has foreign competition
and too much of it.
But if there is sense in voting for
protection to commodity "that has
no foreign competition and can have
none,' why has the Necs' party kept
anthracite coal on the free list
Hence, if McKaig is to be damned
for voting for Tom Johnson's free
steel rails, why shall the Neees escape
political hell for allowing anthracite
coal to stay on the free list
The Ners' statement that the Wilson
tariff bill ''protects nothing and brings
no revenue to the government" is too
reckless to command serious consid-
Grafton.
Tue Ners explains something in its
last paragraph:
Some time ago in referring to the events
which brought about the reduction of the
tariff on coal from 81. % to IS cents the Nems
reminded the JOURNAL that the country
was then emerging from an era Of inflated
prices, and that everything, the price Of coal
included, was having downward tendency,
and the tariff was being adjusted to meet the
general shrinkage in prices which slowly
followed the close Of an exhaustive war.
The JOURNAL is still astounded at
the admission that "a downward ten
dency'' of prices can cause the tariff
to be adjusted to meet the general
shrinkage."
Generally speaking the horse comes
before the cart, and business men are
taught that it is the tariff which reg
ulates prices, and workingmen are
told that the tariff makes wages high
or low.
1t is never understood outside the
Nescs office that prices or wages have
any effect whatever on the tariff, but
always and everywhere that the tariff
is the motive, motor and regulator of
prices and wages.
But if the Netcs is right about the
causes of tariff adjustment downward
in 1872, why does it charge the present
slump of business to the effect and not
to the cause of general shrinkages ?"
Just quadruple puzzle now:
|, Since it is admitted that ga down
ward tendency" of prices, that of
coal included,' occasioned an adjust
ment of the tariff in 1872 ''to meet
the general shrinkage," are we to
understand from the Ne,cs' standpoint
that high wages, which are a good
thing, can be too high9
., If so, where will the Necs draw
the linee
3, And why, when the Mckinley Act
was framed, was the tariff not put up
to the highest point so that wages
could get up there, too?
4, And why an amendment guar
anteeing the benefits of the Act to
wage-earners was voted down by the
so-called high wages crowd?
A quintette of questions
|, If slump in prices in 1872 oc-
casioned a reduction of the tariff, was
the tariff of 1890 the cause or effect of
rise in prices and consequently of
wages?
=, If the cause, why did not coal
enjoy its favor9
3, In short, why was coal discrim-
mated against both when prices re,
duced the tariff in 1872 and again in
1890 when the tariff raised the prices9
+, Why was the rule, which confess
eddy works both ways, turned against
coal each time?
D, And who are the people that APP
piled the rule in both instances against
coal that they should yell "consist-
ency" at McKaig now?
Right here the JOURNAL will en-
phasize its assurance that it has no
interest, direct or indirect, near or re,
mote, in McKaig's past, present or
H,,%, L..