Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1904-01-28
PROSPERITY UNmAskED
fhe Economist Makes a Con-
fessioa.
@oS NOT A PROSPEROUS YEAR.

@o3 NOT A PROSPEROUS YEAR.
This High Tarix Organ Much Afraid
That the Dingles Ril Will Be
Blamed For Hard T:r.ex-It Dl.racx
Labor. hut Has Not IL Word Of Gem
sure For Trust High prices.
Throughout the entire Year Of 1903
the American Economist. the organ Of
the Protective Tariff league. which is
composed of 1000 protected ina,.ufac-
turers, who pay 500 each in tiues. WAS
Boosting about the wonderful prospeyi-
ty then existing. In lis columns every
body was constantly employed ut the
highest wages ever known. There was
no let up in prosperity ut any time. In
the index, which runs from July to
December, 1903. seventeen lines are de-
voted to the word ''piospelity" and two
more to prosperous" Here are some
Of these index lines:
Prosperity, Evidence Of.
prosperity, Inc 1aCtS Oh.
Prosperity. General, untouched.
Prosperity, greatest ever known.
Prosperity, Our unyieiding.
Prosperity rampant.
Prosperity, Solid.
Prosperity stalks abroad.
Prosperity, The wave.
Prosperous year, bright future.
During the last two months Of 1903
the industrial conditions got SO bad
that nearly all the Republican newspa-
pers had admitted that We were in the
midst of depression. Some estimated
that by the end of TIE year 100000
would be out of employment, and the
wages of most of those still employed
would he greatly reduced. AL the trade
papers contained long lists of closed
mills and of wage reductions. Only
the Economist remained to unfiinching-
" assert that prosperity was still ram
pant. 1t is true that Speaker Cannon
and Congressman Hepburn did con-
tinue to speak Of prosperity in the pres
ent tense and to declare that there was
work for every man who wanted to
work and that, too, Eat compensating
due to the implicit confidence which
they placed in the American Economist
and to their lack of time to read the
commercial and trade papers.
But now that 1908 is past and gone it
is admitted even by this protective tar
liz organ that it was a year of closed
mills, unemployed labor, adversely and
disaster. Its leading editorial of Jan. 1,
1904, deyotes four columns to explain
ing why the Dingley tariff was not to
blame for the hard times Of 1903. It is
entitled Causes For the Commercial
Conditions and Results of 1903" Here
are some extracts:
''The free trade orators and editors Of
this year will point to the adversities Of
1908 and attempt to prove that they
were due to the Dingley tariff. The
echoes Of these assertions will be found
reverberating down through the ages
for q decade or generation or a half
century,; hence the voters of those
times will be told that protection was
a failure because Of the calamities of
1908.
During the year more than 100000
men have been idle considerable por-
ton of the time.
"Fully half million men have lost
time and wages. running from u few
days to several months, and it is quite
likely that the earning capacity and
purchasing power of the people at large
have been lessened fully $1,000,000,OO0
during the last twelve months solely
bles.
"That failures would increase to some
extent under circumstances enumerat
ed is not surprising"
The Economist blames the labor un-
ions, the inflated stocks and high price
Of cotton and declares that but for the
protective tariff. the blessed Dingley
law, times would certainly have been
much worse. 1t says not IL word about
the steel and other protected trusts,
whose excessive greed and high mo-
nopoly prices have Slapped the lifeblood
of the people and exhausted their buy
ing power. 1t reserves its censure for
labor-greedy, foolish labor-utterly ig-
noring the fact that when the trusts
had put prices up 40 per cent labor was
entitled to similar advance in wages
and that wages had not advanced one
third as much as had the cost of living
Moral.@The tariff is q friend of the
trusts, but not Of labor.
BYRON W. HOLT.