The Portland daily press., 1894-03-14

| can. from middle class rather than a
democratic economic point OF view. Inc
whole tone of speakers in Congress, ana
editorial writers throughout the country
in favor of the Wilson bill, Is for lower
home wages in the hope Of capturing
foreign markets, oblivlous of the great
new fact of the century, that the IN
creasing wages and consumption or tne
| laboring classes are the foundatIou OF
modern industrial prosperity indeed
this evolution which is dls1lncGiy 1ypi-
i fed in American Industrial history mas
been hitherto practically sealed DOCK
to American economists and statesmen.
| We have come to our new posltloh py
industrial necessity rather than by econ
| omic transition.
Nor is this SO exceptional as II Hlgno
| first appear. 1t is characteristic OF hui
man progress that mankind frst do
things and then learn to explain the
reason WHY. Inductive reasoning is but
| the logical explanation of experience.
The philosophy of history is but the
rational Interpretation of why the hu,
| man race have changed their industrial
methods, moral codes and social institu-
tions, and why they are remodeled d!tfer-
| emily in different countries under diner.
| ent conditions. In short, the science OF
| craftsmanship is but the reduction OF
relatively blind experimentation TO gem
eral principles for future guidance.
/
economics did not create English m ddle
class industries but was the outcome OF
| them. regardless of the economic notions
| of medieval England and the pessl-
mistic predictions of schoolmen ana rep
pressive influence of the landed arlsIoc,
racy. The English middle class persisted
| in their trading methods; they paid ana
received interest, preferred manufacture
and comm cree to agriculture, and wage
| labor to serfdom, and after four centuries
| of persistent doing, against the ira
! ditional theories of the period, they de-
| veloped an economic school to explain
why they had persisted in their pro-
| gressive course.
| The labor movement is another exam
| pie of the same universal tendency.
! Laborers have organized into unions
against the protests of economists, states
| men and philanthropists; even entering
into conflicts with apparently irresistible
| odds, and sometimes suffering seemingly
crushing defeats. Yet they perslstently
/ demanded higher wages when the ga CAPT
| taIists declared it was Impossible. Lney
have insisted upon reduction OF the
hours Of labor without diminished pay,
in the face of predictions that 5hey
would ruin the industries OF the country.
They have opposed the employment OF
Young children in factories and mines,
and demanded sanitary and other protec-
| taken reasons, But their persistence has
succeeded, and nov the world recognizes
| that they have in the main been right,
| and modern economics demonstrates that
the instincts of the masses are more cor
rect than the economics OF the classes.
Henceforth trade unions, factory legls-
Iation and enforced schooling of working
/ children are to be recognized as necessary
| economic forces in the Industrial and
| social advance of the community. Inc
political ECONOMY that now ignores
these only emphasizes it's own useless
ness as an economic system.
| 1t is not surprising, therefore. that the
same should be true of the American
| school of democl attic economies and
| public policy. Like the people in every
| progressive era, we have been wiser imam
| we knew. Our practice has been better
than our theory. We have believed and
| taught nearly all the heresles OF the Eng
i Iiah school; and as if to demonstrate the
superiority of our native sense over our
/ economic theories, utterly d1sregarded
| them in our national policy; and like
| trade unions and other natural move
ments, the disregard of our accepted
| economic tenets in nOwlse prevented our
| success.
! But the failure intelligently to under
stand the social significance OF tnelr own
| conduct, put protectionists at constant
disadvantage with the traditional oppon-
| ents of oul natural policy. The profess
| ional class. who only know economies
! through concentrations drawn from
English thinking instead of American
experience have furnished the chief IN
spiration to the anti-protectlve move
ment. They have persistently played
upon the English postulates that prices
and wages are governed by supply and
demand. assuring farmers that the
/ prices of their crops are determined by
competition in Liverpool and consequent
Iy are free trade prices. They also assure
laborers that their wages are determined
by the competition OF workmen ana
| hence are not affected by protection, all
/ the benefits of tariff legislation going to
| capitalists. Against all this protection
| lists have had no adequate reply, because
| they themselves have accepted the same
| English postulates regarding prices ana
| wages. Consequently their chief defense
has been to point to the national pros
perity under protection. Free traders,
| while admitting the fact, vigorously
| DENY that protection is the cause, and SO
| again put protectionist advocates at
nositiye economic disadvantage. by
| these sophistical methods free traders
have more than once induced the Ameri-
can people to disregard their own expert
ence and change their national policy to
| sniff the requirements of free trade
economics, only to experience Industrial
! chaos and social disaster. Our present
| Industrial condition is but one of several
| of these experiences.
The influence of leading colleges and
of the professional classes has formed
| the chief background for this retorgress-
i've movement Their habituai tendency
to substitute English postulates for
| American experience as a criterion for
Judging our national policy has entirely
conrolled the action of the majority
party in Congress. They have broken
all previous records in this respect, hav-
ing actually refused TO hear the testi-
mony or consider the experience of man
ufacturers and business men of the coun-
try upon the subject. In the debates the
arguments have been almost exclusively
academic; assuming English economic
POSITIONS as automatic, and treating the
whole subject as if the United States
were the duplicate of England in the
first half of the century.
To all this classical a priori method of
treating the subject Mr.. Reed has given
a serious shock. Besides adding num-
Der of pertinent though greatly neglected
facts in English history to our own, he
souarely challenged the economic doc