This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/XY.2ADE/740 Message Board Post: Hi, Just reviewing some old notes and found this about the affect of business on towns. An editorial in the "Daily Camera" ("The Coal Problem" 7 June 1891 p.2) states the "mines have been a losing investment for the past two years" because the small market is greatly less than the capacity. The editorial suggests "the operators should organize" with a "monoploy" management that will force the railroads to better rates, markets will open, etc.,etc. And "the scheme has already been inaugurated by the United Coal Company." (The villians in an old family story). In the 18 May 1892 issue (page 1) the "Daily Camera" reports a "scoop." In an article titled "A Big Coal Combine" the paper reports that as of June 1st "United Coal Company would have control of the entire output of Northwestern Colorado coal." They had contracts with all of the mines for a fixed rate, fixed outputs and some "...owners [would be] paid for keeping shut down for five years." The article goes on to say this will in effect shut down the town of Langford. In the 3 June 1892 issue (page 1) is "The Big Coal Deal". It notes - "Poor old Langford. Once the banner coal camp of Northern Colorado...soon to be deserted." "The population is busy now moving to Louisville and Lafayette..." "Langford is dead but from it's ashes is coming forth the hustling and wide awake towns of Louisville and Lafayette." The 1895 Atlas ( http://www.livgenmi.com/1895.htm ) lists their populations as - Langford - 233 Louisville - 596 Lafayette - 410 What was it, just another 20 years and we get the Columbine Mine Massacre and Ludlow. United shouldn't have stolen that mine from my widowed ancestor. Regards, David