Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1900-03-24
Is This "a Snake ?


For years the populous districts ofthe Creek
have been going to Cumberland to find them
selves out-voted by the representatives OF
pine brush, old rails and sandstone.
Senator Dick may be wrong in some di-
rections, but in at least one instance he is on
the right track-the emancipation of the
Creek from the rule of enfranchSed dirt.
Somebody on the staff of the Cum
berland Times who cannot read, or
who, able to read, purposely inter
preted those lines to mean "a dirty
fling at good citizens who do not live
in the mining DISTRICTS" and based
other vicious language upon reading
as far from the truth as 1.-THE father of
les himself can fly.
In short, this writer imagined, or
affected to imagine that the phrase,
"enfranchised dirt" was applied by
the JOURNAL to people outside "the
mining discricts."
Without attempting to show by
correlation and antithesis that the
Times construction is wholly wrong,
not to say Just now purposeIy SO, we
will 90 back to previous issue of that
paper for the ,foundati0n of the whole
business. In table therein pub
liShed it is shown that Il district that
ought to have no more than votes in
convention. under the present system
has ). Hence, there are ) votes now
representative-not of people, but of
"plne brush, old rails and sandstone
these three being reckoned as pre-
dominating features of, say districts
|, , and 3-practically "enfranchised
dirt"
In short. the JOURNAL editorial was
based on the showing before made by
the Times that, if Senator Dicks bill
passes the next and future conven-
tions, representing "the people," the
creek will have 81 delegates; the out
side districts 81 "pine brush. old rails
and sandstone none!
AS the situation now ls-"pine
brush, old rails and sandstone in
their Representatives" are enfran-
chised;' under Mr.. Dicks bill they
will be disfran chised-a consummation
that any paper protesting to be demo-
cratic should wish for devoutly.
But, acerepeat, IN no line, ,cord, nor Sylla6le
Of tie article ocas the term, "enfranchised
dirt" applied TO any people amyrhere'
Turn the little article around, twist it
anyway, the phrase ''enfranchised
Dirt has no subsequent and but one
antecedent-''p brush, old rails and
sandstone"
That is settled.
There is a want Of occasion for the
Times explosion torced tone of con
Germ for ''the people outside the min
ing districts,n and fulSomeness of ar
rogant regard for the truth, stunning
by its suddenness, which lead us to
fear that, for some purpose, unknown
duu btyouu ali ulNludtlou, me 4 "teS
aimed to injure this paper. or its
editor, or, rather, both.
If it so turns out and we can trace
any hurt to its jealousy or malignity,
the people will be taken fully into the
JOURNALS confidence.
Case in Point.
Some time ago at the instance of
Jersey city New Jersey court grant
ed au injunction restraining the city
of Paterson from pouring ITS sewage
into the Passaic liver. The city APP
pcaled, and on Monday the highest
court of the State reversed the judg-
ment of the lower, holding that
the riparian owners in that part of the
river where the tide GIBBS and flows only have
a proprietary interest in the river to high
water mark; that the State owns the bed of
the stream, and the city of Paterson, having
legislative right to sewer INTO the river, these
owners are not entitled to an injunction.
The JOURNAL is not, of course, pre-
pared to show wherein Cumberland's
right to the Potomac is analogous to
Paterson's right to the Passaic for use
as an open public sewer, but certainly
Cumberland can have no monopoly of
the Potomac which the Legislature
has granted or can grant.
This seems especially the case when
it is considered that the watershed on
but one side of the Potomac could
have been so given to Cumberland.
In New Jersey, however, both water
sheds are within the State, yet Pater-
sons right to make a sewer of the river
is paramount to Jersey city's right to
monOpolize 1t as water supply.
That court would have probably
emphasized its decision in yet stronger
language had it found that Jersey city
claimed a monopoly of watershed
that did not belong to the State.
Cumberland has made a great ado
over its investment in water works,
with an intake IA short distance above
the city. In the case of the Passaic
river, now legalized as setcer. the court
holds, not only that Jersey city has no
right to the river as water supply,
but it
has no special right in the river By reason
81 tie tOcdtjOn Of its Tater UOrkS.
Demonstration can no farther 90