Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1894-02-07
Mr.. REEDS SPEECH.
Closing Address Against the Wilson Bill In
the House.

Speaker Reed made the closing speech
in opposition to the Wilson bill. He
said
Whatever speeches have been made in de-
Tense of the bill on the other side, whether
by gentlemen who were responsible only to
their own constituencies or by the gentle
man from West Virginia who ought to have
been steaded by his sense of responsibility
to the whole country, have one and all,
with but rare exceptions, placed their au-
thOrs uncOmprOmisingly except for tempo
rary purposes, on the side Of unrestricted
free trade 1t is evident that there is no
ground for that hope, entertained by so
many moderate men, that this bill, bad as
it IS, could be q resting place where our
manufacturing and productive industries,
such as may survive, can re-establlsh
themselves and have sure foundation Tor
the future free from party pickering and
party strife. Hence also, there can BE no
foundation for that cry so lnsldlOusly
raised, that this bill should be passed at once,
because uncertainty is worse than any bill
can possibly be- Were this bill to pass
! both branches to-day, uncertainty would
reign just the same. So utterly undlsputed
and so distinctly visible to every human
being in this audience has been our growth
and progress that whatever the future in
dustrial system of this country may be, the
past system is a splendid monument to that
series of successful statesmen who found the
country bankrupt and distracted and left 1t
first on the list OF nations.
Mr.. Reed here quoted at length from
English authorities showing the strength
Of their confidence in the prosperity Of
this country, and continued:
These quotations are reminders for you,
Mr.. Speaker, and all who hear me, know
that the American who has been long
enough here to know his opportunities has
ha nj q
world. Is there any example III the his
tory of the world Of any nation situated
like ours who has taken the step to
which we are invited? Some gentlemen,
perhaps are fastening to say that England
affords us the needed example; that we have
brt to turn to her history and find all that
we need by way Of examples, just as III the
statements of her political economists We
shall find all that is necessary for advice for
guidance and instruction. Mr. Speaker /
! have looked there and am amazed to find
how little the example of England can
| teach.
The truth is that this very question Of ris-
| ing wages is what makes a good many men
! free traders. People with fixed incomes
! think that anything which raises wages is
| inimical to them, and manufacturers who
! have foreign markets are naturally anx-
! iOuS to have wages on the foreign
! standard | confess TO you that this
! question of wages Is to me
| the vital question. To insure our growth
! in civilization and wealth we must not only
| have wages @S high as they are now, but
! constantly and steadily increasing. This
| desire of mine for constantly increasing
wages does not have its origin in love for
1 the individual, but in love for the nation.
Mr.. Reed eulogized the American
markets as being the best in the world &,
the high wages paid here enabling
workingmen to purchase largely of the
| comforts Of life. Instead of increas-
ing this market, he said, by leay-
ing it to the steady increase OF
wages which the figures of the
! Aldrich report SO concluSively show
! and which have not only received
the sanction of the members from New
| York, the secretary Of the treasury and
| the Democratic bureau Of statistics, our
committee proposes to lower wages and
| lessen the market and then divide t hat
market with somebody else, and all on
the chance of getting the markets of
the world. He continued:
To add to the interesting possibilities OF
! this contention, the orators on the other
side say they are going to maintain wages.
! How can that be possible? All things sell
! at the cost of production. If the difference
| between cost of production here and cost of
| production in England be not equaliZed by
| the duty, then our cost of production must
! 90 down or we must go out. Our laws
! have invited money and men and we have
| grown great and rich thereby. The gentle
| man from Illinois Mr.. Black has noticed
! that men come here, and he does not
want them to come: hence he is will
! ing that our wages shall be lowered
| to keep people away. Well, this is
not the time to discuss immigration; but
while people are coming, | am glad they
| have not yet imbibed the gentleman'S ideas
and have not yet begun to clamor for lower
! wages.
TO sum it up, if this protection gives us
| money and men land our vast country
needs bOth) it may show why We have 50
wonderfully prospered. If it does, | am in
clined to think that the way to have two
! Jobs hunting one man is to keep on making
new mills and try to prevent the committee
on ways and means from pulling down old
! ones.
But what would you say Of the farmer
! Well, on that subject do not profess any
special learning, but there is one simple
statement | wish to make and leave the
question there, If with cities growing. III
like magic, manufacturing villages dotting
every eligible site, each and all
swarming with mouths to be filled
the producers of food are worse
off than when half this country
was a desert, | abandon sense in favor OF
political economy. One other thing have
noticed in this debate: When the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Simpson, gets little
money ahead he does not put it into stocks
in these immensely profitable manufac-
tories; he has too much sense. He adds to
his farm, and has told us SO. Example is
richer than precept If the hope of agri-
culturists is in English free trade,
they had better ponder on the fact that
while the wages of artisans have increased
ip England s.. 43 per week since 1850, the
wages OF agricultural laborers have only
increased Y cents, and while the Ian
cashire operatives IA the factories live as
we'll anybody except Americans, the
agricultural labOrers are hardly better of
than the continental peasantry. England
example will not do for agriculture.
Here let me meet one other question, and
let me meet it fairly. We are charged with
having claimed that the tariff alone will
raise wages. We have never made such a
claim in any such form. Free traders have
set up that claim for us in order TO tri-
umphantly knock it over What We dc
say is that where two nations have
equal skill and equal appliances. and
marlleG nearly equal SO, and one of them
can hire labor at One-half less, nothing
but tariff can maintain the higher wages,
and that we can prove. We are the only