Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1905-05-11

each year a certain sum of money as a
gratuity while he was getting his edu-
cation and establishing himself in bust
ness he would consider it offensive IN
gratitude on the part of the latter if,
after years Of payment, he insisted
that the bounty should be continued
until General Draper could prove in an
unmistakable that he (the
nephew no longer needed this assist
ance. In his personal practice n may
be sure that General Draper would
make short work Of such a n~onsensical
and insulting theory Of vested rights,
but when the argument is turned and
come-through action which to a large
degree they themselves have imposed
upon government-privileged bounty
drawers from the pockets Of the Amer
lean people it appears difficult for them
to realize that proof should always be
! given that these favors are needed.
OF our those who desire tariff re-
vision and those who are believers in
free trade may be said to be actuated
by personal m~otives-by the desire for
gain in the cause they are advocating
but the mar who makes the plea that
the taxes that he is paying for the spe-
cial benefit Of some Of his neighbors
are grossly high OF should be entirely
taken off occupies a distinctly different
| ground from the mar who insists that
he should be accorded through an in
definite future the right to take and use
for his own benefit and enjoyment a
part Of the money earned by the hard
work of his neighbors. This is where
on broad principles the position taken
and the arguments built up by General
Draper are entirely illogical.
Equally SO for other reasons are the
statements which he has made con
corning the policy Of the Republican
party respecting protection legislation.
General Draper has had altogether too
much political experience not to know
that the attitude Of the Republican
party in the matter Of protection has
been essentially an opportunist atti-
tude. 1t is only within the last two or
three years that the stand pat attitude
has even been so much as suggested.
Over and over again, from one endo of the
country to the other, in every national
election that we have had for the last
twenty years, the argument has been
made and reiterated that it must not
be left to the Democrats to revise the
tariff, for they would destroy it; that
tariff revision should in all cases be
made by friends of protection and not
by it's enemies. But now we have this
last utterance by an apostle of the ex-
tremist form Of protection, that the
Republican party should never revise
the tariff-that is, in the sense Of re-
ducing a rate-but should always leave
this business to the Democrats, no
matter what injustices, inequalities
and injuries the tariff may be RESPONSE
BILE for.
These are a few comments on what
may be termed the bases of General
Diapers argument. It wouA require
more space than we can give to it to
take up one by n his economic errors
concerning the distribution Of the re-
suits Of production as determined by
tariff legislation. It is curious in these
arguments what a tremendous interest
in the walfare Of labor Is taken by
strenuous, thoroughgoing protectionists
when they wish to popularize an argu'
ment. AS a matter Of fact, the gross
sum of wages in this country is not
raised by so much as one penny as the
! results Of the protective tariff. Ihe
distribution Of these wages may tc
some extent be controlled thereby, and
q great deal is wrongfully extracted
from the wages that workingmen carr
in the higher. prices Of commodities
which protection permits to be charg
ed. but the wage fund of the unltec
States as a whole would not. we say
be a cent less than it now is II during
the last ten years there had been nc
duty imposed upon imported coinlnoo
tiles.
In fact, under such circumstances the
trade of this country would have peel
so much larger than 1t now is nat !
can be safely affirmed that the gross
sum of wages would be much large
than that which now annually for1h'
, the workingman's share IN the resu'''
Of national production.