Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1893-05-19
DIVIDENDS MUST BE PROTECTED.

Wages Cannot Be Reduced Below the Pres
ent Bottom Rates.
The Hon. E. Ellery Anderson, in Amer
lean Industries Of April 20, makes reply.
in an article entitled ''The Lament Of
Our Industrial Pensioners" to some OF
the wild and reckless statements Of pro-
tected manufacturers recently printed IN
The American Economist criticising the
Reform clubs proposed bill. After quot
ing many Of the gloomy statements and
disposing in detail of few Of them, Mr..
Anderson continues:
1--WE should like to inquire if there Is
any proportion whatever Of truth in this
lament Of the manufacturers. What has
become Of the assertion so loudly pro-
claimed throughout 1892 that a protect
i've tariff was tax only In the inception
that very soon natural competition
among domestic producers would reduce
prices so that the consumer would OBJ
tain his goods cheaper at home than he
could from abroad7 Surely this sham
plea must be withdrawn and abandoned
If we are to consider the proposition as
now made-that under the reduced per-
centages Of the proposed bill every form
Of American activity is to become stilled
and its product furnished by its foreign
competitor. With every possible allow
ance for the manifest exaggeration CT
statement, the proposition made can only
mean that consumers in this country are
now paying to manufacturers more then
they would pay if the proposed tariff b.l
were to become law.
'There is one proposition about which
all writers to The Economist seem to
agree-they are all going to cut down
their wages from 25 to so per cent. Div
idends must be protected though the
heavens fall. The reduction, if any be
necessary, can be ground out Of the oper-
Rtlve.
whether it be true or not that some
Of these bleating calves that have for the
better part of century drawn their pap
and support from the protection COW
have SO long adhered to obsolete and ex-
travagant methods Of production that
the time Of their usefulness has expired,
and that they should shut down and go
out Of existence because they are Of no
use to any one, we will not at present In
quire. But Of one proposition we are
certain, and that is that none Of these
industries will be able to take the hun
dredth part of cent from the wages Of
any Of their operatives. They cannot
reduce wages because they have never
advanced wages. The rate Of the wage
Garner In this country is in no manner
dependent upon the existence or nonex-
istence Of protective industries. It is
higher here than abroad because the op-
portunitiessfor production in the United
States are greater than elsewhere, be-
cause the individual power of produc-
ton is greater here than elsewhere, and
because the opportunities for self ad-
vancement are better here than in other
lands. We rais4 over 100000 900 Of
agricultural products from our lands
We build 10000 miles of railroad every
year and open up vast areas Of rich and
fertile fields. We build countless new
houses and stores in our cities and towns.
We manufacture nine-tenths Of the cloth
ing of our people. We construct ingen-
ious machinery, endless in variety Of
form and application Of usefulness. We
have given to the world the best appli-
cation of the telegraph, the electric light,
the telephone and the sewing machine.
'In these great fields of agricultural
product, mechanical pursuit and useful
invention the United States leads the
world. And yet in all these pursuits we
pay good wages to our workmen and are
able to do it because the product that
comes from their hands is greater in a
given time than the product in similar
fields Of employment abroad. The un-
protected occupations in the United
States afford today employment to nine
tenths of our workmen. For this reason
we assert with entire confidence that the
industrial pensioners of this country will
not succeed in their threatened reduc-
ton Of the wages Of their operatives be-
cause they can always find abundant en-
ployment in occupations that are not pro-
tected.
1--WE do not, however, believe that any
u GA0 "CActAS4oAy
owed by The Economist have substantial
foundation in fact. While, as before
suggested, some few forms of produc-
ton may have to be discontinued in the
United States (and no one should regret
their discontinuance any more than one
should regret the abandonment Of futile
effort to raise coffee or tea in lands un-
suited for such production), as far as the
great mass of our textile and metal in
dustries are concerned, we are satisfied
that the only effect Of the enactment of
the proposed bill on these industries
would be to compel those engaged in
them to resort to more careful and eco
nomical methods Of production, which
would in short time enable them to RI
val and Guido the producers of other
lands"