Jasper County Democrat, Volume 15, Number 60, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 October 1912 — THE WANAMAKER PROSPERITY PLEA [ARTICLE]

THE WANAMAKER PROSPERITY PLEA

Fallacies of His Argument Dissected Io Counter Appeal to Merchants.

FREE TRADE NOT PROPOSED.

Panics Occur Without Regard to Tariff Revision—Business Men Directing the Wilson Campaign. To the Merchants and Business Men

j of the United States: Mr. John Wanamaker has issued a “note of warning” against the "destruction of industries” which he says will follow the election of Woodrow Wilson. To bark back twenty years in American industry is to deal with ancient history. During this score of years American industries have advanced so far in competing power that a comparison even with IS9O is ridiculous. In that year our exports of manufactures were less 1 than two hundred mil lions in annual value: today they are at the rate of twelve hundred millions, a gain of 600 per cent. How is disaster to come from the competition on our ground of those manufacturers with whom we are successfully competing on their ground? It is a poor time to cry distress when we are exerting steel manufactures at the rate of a million dollars daily. During Mr. Cleveland’s first administration, ISSS to 1889. there was no panic—there was only prosperity. But Mr. Wanamaker forgets this. Mr. Harrison, a Republican, succeeded in 1899, serving till ,18113. During this time Mr. Wanamaker himself was in President Harrison’s cabinet, and it Was then the conditions matured which resulted in the panic of 18143. four months after Mr. Cleveland took office the second time. Mr. Wanamaker quotes from various sources certain records of distress, but neglects to say that every one of them bears a date not less than six months before the tariff bill of 1594 became a law and. as a matter of fact, before its terms were known.

The truth is that neither a Republican administration nor a thigh tariff is any protection against panics, and they occur, as everybody knows, except Mr. Wanamaker. quite without regard to tariff changes. Our very worst panics have occurred under Republican administrations. In 1908 the Republican party in its platform declared “unequivocally for the revision of the tariff." but this promise, soon so recklessly broken, had no deterrent effect upon improvement in business conditions. It cannot therefore be said that the mere threat of tariff revision causes distress. for there was no doubt in 1908 not only that the tariff was to be revised, but that it was to be revised downward. Ignoring the Present. Most important, however, in Mr. Wanamaker’s letter is his failure to refer to existing conditions. He promises all sorts of disaster in a very general way. but has nothing to say about current facts of industry. For example, it has been well known since 1910 that the public demanded the downward revision of the tariff which Mr. Taft promised and later denied. A Democratic house of representatives was elected in 1910 on that special issue. That house passed a series of tariff measures, some of them over the president's veto. On each of these measures a number of Progressive Republicans voted with the Democrats. One of these bills reduced the duty on steel. Ye,t. although a revision of the steel schedule was and is pending, the steel industry has revived, prices are advancing and. strangest of all. from Mr. Wanamaker’s point of view, large investments are now being made in new steel plants.

If the danger that Mr. Wanamaker foresees is real how is it that these investments proceed? How is it that manufacturers all over the country are increasing their plants? Mr. Wanamaker seems ignorant also of the actual labor conditions. High wages are not necessarily a sign of prosperity. As Professor Fisher points out a century and a half ago laborers in Rhode Island received a wage of $lO daily, but it took four days’ work to buy a pair of shoes. Nor. are high wage? a result of the protective tariff. .The Lawrence strike; brought out this I fact vividly. There the textile manufacturers have a very high protective (tariff to favor them, but the wages of their employees were shown to be indefensibly low A fair comparison is that between England and Germany, both thickly (populated, one having no protection and the other high protection. How do wages stand in these (countries today? Those in Germdny are 17 per cent lower than English wages, and riot only so. but the cost of living in Germany is 17 per cent higher, so that the protected German .workman earns the smaller wage and pays the higher cost \ Free Trade Bogy. Is it not truly ridiculous for Mr. Wanamaker to raise the bogy of free (trade? No party advocates that Mr. [Wanamaker must know that the Democratic cotton and woolen bills are not free trade measures in any sense. The fact is that the Republican plat*

form of ltA% as well as the Democratic platform of isos declared for a revision of the tariff. It seems to me that the only question before the American people now is. Who will give them the downward revision for which they made a new demand in 1910, when a Democratic congress was overwhelm ingly elected? It is clear that the only man in the race who will stand for an intelligent revision downward is Woodrow Wilson and the only party which will give it is the Democratic party. Now, if Mr. Wanamaker is correct in his assertion that prosperity depends wholly upon Republican rule and the maintenance of a high tariff policy, how does he explain the in controvertible fact that with everybody demanding tariff revision downward the whole business of the country today is. in anticipation of thie very revision and the certainty of Democratic success, in better condition. more stimulated and more aggressive than it has been in manyyears? Does he not know that our shrctyd ben-hants. business men and bankers almost infallibly sense im prove ment in business conditions or. as they say in the vernacular, “discount it?" Democratic succcess Is on all sMes conceded. Is Not to Destroy. Finally, it bears strongly on Mr. W’anamaker's statement to note that the Democratic campaign is largely in the hands of business men. I cannot claim the distinction of being ' a merchant, yet 1 hope I can qualify as a business man. Certainly I should hesitate to advocate the adoption of any policy or to ask my friends to follow the leadership of any man or party likely in any way to bring harm to the people of this country. It would be easy to add the names of distin guislied manufacturers all over the land who are in active co-operation with the Democratic national commit tee in this campaign. These men. hav ing great business interests at stake, are not likely to be deceived into pro moting their own destruction. They feel, as do many others of our leading manufacturers, that the Democratic party in promising a gradual revision of the tariff is helping and not hinder ing our industries. Governor Wilson has frankly’ said: “I am not interested in disturbing the sweat course of business in this country, but 1 am interested in enriching it.” W. G. M’ADOO. New York. Oct. 12.