Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1903-03-07
WHY Did They DO 1t?
LoNAcoNING. Mn. Feb. u. lyt

LONACuNING. Nh, Feb. u, lEB.
To the MINING JOURNAL.
| would like to ask the Cumberland
NPWs, as the exponent of republican
principles, what reason any miner will
have to vote the republican ticket at the
coming election:
We have voted the ticket in years
gone by because it was our belief that a
protective tariff helped to maintain the
wages of mining AS we'll as of other i'll
dustries.
For eight of the last twenty-one years
Hon. l.. E. McComas has represented
this Congressional district i'll the House
of Representatives, and for four more
years he has represented the State in the
Senate. Every two years of the eight he
was a member of the House the miners.
in response to his request, sent delega-
lions to join similar delegations from
our coal companies and business men
to protest against even a reduction i'll
duties OH coal lest our wages be reduced.
As stated, all responded nobly to his call
each time and stood by him at all times,
as was proven when he went down i'll
1890, because in no part OF the district
was his majority kept up at that election
like it was between FroStburg and West
ernpOrt.
But this is leading me away from the
main question.
We voted for republican principles be-
cause we believed we were benefited by
being paid higher wages than we would
receive if the tariff was taken off and
Canadian coalladmitted free, and we
think that yet.
And we believe shoes would be cheaper
-. %,I-a Aff hi
lumber would he cheaper if the duty was
taken off, and the same can be said of
many or all other protected products.
Knowing that he would vote for a
duty ON lumber, hides, etc, and that we
would be compelled to pay higher prices
for all protected goods, we We're willing
to vote for him, believing that the pep
pie who worked in lumber leather. etc,
should have higher wages as well as our
selves.
What | would like to know now is
why at this time was the duty taken off
coal and left on all other goods? Was it
because | and my fellow miners are al
| ready wOrkiug-some half time, some
| three,quarter, and none full time !:
| Would we not mine more coal If we had
| the opportunity! Was it because the
companies would not ship the coal If they
| had cars!
think not.
Was the duty taken of coal and left on
hides to keep up the prices of shoes at
| our EXPENSE for the benefit of the New
England manufacturer: Was it because
we wanted to give him cheap coal and
pay him high prices for shoes, etc, or
| was it to prevent us from getting little
of the boosted prosperity now going:
Was the duty kept on lumber to take
care of Maine, Michigan, Minnesota and
Wisconsin, and because free lumber
would hurt Maryland:
Then why was it, with II republican
Congressman and Senator from Allegany
county, and Senator from an adjoining
county, whose stauncheSt friends were
the miners, this duty was allowed to be
taken off the only product of the miners
that needed protection. while it was left
on part Of the food we eat and all the
clothes we wear:
The lumber to build our houses, the
iron used around our mines, the ma
chinery needed to bring our coal to day
light, that is to-day being sold i'll foreign
countries cheaper than at home were
left on the taxable list. but the coal
the product of our labor. was stripped
bare, naked, and now, shorn and help
less, has to meet the fierce competition of
the entire world.
No objection to the Sfnr- R'"i'w, of this
town, independept papers with repub-
lican leanings," taking u hand to help
the News ont. 4 BlsGUSTED MINER.