The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1897-05-28
Will the Dlngley Bill Restore
Prosperity?


postum of articles from Senators
and congressman in answer to tho
question: Will the Dingley bill re-
store prosperity? Among the
articles published in the May num-
Der in answer to this question is
one by Senator Marion Butler. 1t
is as follows:
81 am asked to give my views in
response to the question: will the
Dingley Bill revive business
eff the Dingley bill will increase
the capacity of the American peo-
pie to purchase, even to the extent
of supplying their necessities, then
it will revive business. If it fails
to do this, then it cannot revive
business. The Dingley bill cannot
open the mills and keep them open
unless there is a market for what
the mills produce. If there were
such market, that is, if those who
desire to consume were able to pur-
chase, the mills would be open now
running full speed. Today the
commercial salesman finds that he
cannot place as large an order with
the retail merchant as formerly.
The merchant explains that he has
not yet disposed of his last pur-
chase. Some of the goods are still
in stock or else they have been sold
to customers on credit, who have
not yet been able to pay. The
salesman, therefore, sends in small
err and fewer orders and, in turn,
the jobbers place fewer and smaller
orders with the wholesale man and
and the factory. This tells the
story. 1t is the condition of the
consumer, the inability of the
masses to purchase, that has shut
down some mills and caused others
to run on short time. This condi-
ton cannot change until the condi-
ton of the agriculturists and pro-
ducing classes is improved, and
improved materially. Now will
the Dingley bill accomplish this ?
Not even its author is rash enough
to make such claim.
"The cause Of industrial depres-
sion is much deeper than the differ
ence between any high protective
tariff or revenue tariff. We have
suffered business depression,
strikes, and lock -outs alike under
a high tariff. In short, we have
always suffered business stagnation
and depression when the volume of
money was contracted or within the
control of any combination of men
other than the government itself.
"The Republican party has prom
ised to give the country prosperity
with its policy of protection and
the gold standard. 1t is an impos
sible task. Free trade and the gold
standard go together. They have
promised to protect American in
.dustry and American labor against
the pauper labor of foreign coun-
tries. would be glad to see them
carry out this pledge in good faith,
but the Dingley bill falls far short
oftheir protection promises. Nine
tenths of the protection which il
will afford will be for few specially
favored manufacturers. Even the
labor employed in such factories is
guaranteed no protection, save such
as the generosity of their employers
may see fit to grant. Besides,
farming, which certainly must be
included in the list of American
industries, is not protected at all
against foreign competition. There
are only about four million laborers
employed in manufacturing, while
there are over nine millions en-
ployed in the cotton fields of the
South and in the wheat fields of the
West. These men are certainly as
much American laborers as those
engaged in the factories, yet the
Dingley bill does not even propose
to protect single one of this vast
number. These laborers are forced
to meet the competition of foreign
pauper labor, just the same as the
laborers in the factories. 1t is true
that the great agricultural industry,
and the nine million of labOrers en-
ployed in it, cannot be protected by
an import duty, because the pro-
duets of their labor are exported;
INIT fhaV ron NO Drnt oct OIL Inv :,