The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1897-05-20

CuugrCssmen in answer TO the ques
uou. Will the Dingley bill restore
prosperityY Among the articles
ruDished in the May number in an
sver to this question Is one by Sena-
,,r Butler. IL is as follows:
90" am asked to give my views in
rsyunse TO the question: will the
! p1g.oy Bill Revive BusinessY'
u me Dingley bill will increase
becapacity of the American people
N purchase, even to the extent of
upp.yng their necessities, then il
will revive business. IL it fails to do
this. tucu it cannot revive busine ss.
The pngley bill cannot open the
mills and keep them open unless
tbcre H market for what the mills
produce. II there were such mar
krt that is, If those who desire to
consume were able to purchase, the
mills would he open now running
mlI speed Today the commercial
salesman finds that he cannot place
ag Ntgo an order with the retail
merchant as formerly. The merch-
ant explains that he has not vet dis
posed of his last purchase. Some Of
the goods are still in stock or else
they have been sold to customers or
credit, who have not yet been able
TO pay. The salesman, therefore,
sends in smaller and fewer orders
and, in turn, the jobbers place fewer
and smaller orders with the whole.
sale man 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 condition can
not change until the condition of
The agrculturists and producing
.asses is improved, and improved
materially. Now will the Dingley
bill accomplish thisq Not even its
author is rash enough to make such
claim
The cause of industrial depre ssion
much deeper than the difference
between any high protective tariff
pr revenue tariff. We have suffered
business depression, strikes, and
ock-outs alike under a low tariff
Ind under high tariff. Ia shor' ,
we have always suffered business
Btagnation and depression when the
volume of money was contracted or
within the control of any combina-
ion of men other than the govern
lnent itself.
The Republican party has prom
sed to give the country prosperity
Fith its policy of protection and the
old standard. 1t is an impossible
psk. Free trade and the gold stand
rd go together. They have prom
ped to protect American industry
md American labor against the
auper labor of foreign countries.
|ould be glad to see them carry out
bis pledge in good faith. but the
ingley bill falls far short of their
fotection promises. Nine tenths OF
,e protection which 1t will afford
i'll be for a few specially favored
anufacturers. Even the labor en-
Dyed in such factories is guaran-
Jed no protection, save such as the
Fnerosity of their employers may
70 fit to grant. Besides, farming,
hieh certainly must be Included in
@ list of American indu strles, lis
y protected at all against foreign
mpetition. There are only about
pr million laborers employed in
Rnutacturing, while there are over
pc millions employed in the cotton
Ids of the South and in the wheat
Ids of the West. These men are
ftainly rs much American labor.
as those engaged in the fac
Fies, yet the Dingley bill does no,
Pm propose to protect a single one
this vast number. These laborers
forced to meet the competition
foreign pauper labor, just the
Pc as the laborers in the factories
true that the great agricultural
|ustry, and the nine million of la.
fers employed in il, cannot be
teeted by an import duty, be-
se the products of their labor are
orted; but they can be prote cteC
a different method. Protector
Pc principle for which the Re
hcan party stands, and to which
pledged to the American peo
The import duty is simply thu
hod which it employs to protec
manufacturers. Now let th'
uoUeau party employ some Otbe
hod that will protect agriculture
agricultural labor Let then
y their great principle of protec
10 every Ame rican industry AM
American labor sui set to for
p'uoer competition, by what
method nect ctssary to give su ,l
4 'ellon | submit that there ar
Methods by which this protcc
4 can he given.
q f.t. BY taking from our compel
. IN | dia, Russia and Argentin
y bounty due to the euhance
= Il z Id, which they now tDj
q x Getriment The differ r4pee o
: 'rg", which amounts to pre-
= = %, or rather q bounty, of neal
2 ie huudred per cent, to our con
!! orS, can be removed if Ihe II
y l'an party will establish Il
= pendent n rican system {
's Ism ut the present legal r,
= re&,iz, that the Republica
y, y howevrr, is pledged to L
- rn not TO give this mei he'd {
as rnon. There is but one oth'
y lett open to them to keep tho
" SO to agriculture aud agricu
~ labor.
~ old. That Is by an expo
~ W. do not favor the princip
- Puntles, but will favor it in tn
iSs is'ss II no other remedy can be ha
:aSs :aaSss pc principle of offsetting o.
- ~ with another bounty. If t
- oNcsn party can protect ag
O. O. re and agricultural labor
81 o'her method which is bett,
l% let them do it. IL it cannot
az ~ that it Is bound by it's soleI
- alton to the Am,rl"an peo,
o's otect all American labor a
lean industries against forei
btltlon bv adonti in Co III n m ~ n,