The Indianapolis journal., 1904-04-27

y, UI1IeTenCe
price of agricultural products" Let us see:
Let us limit il alone to the exports OF
manufactured products and see the result
What is il? Seven years under the Ding
ley law, seven years before it becomes a
law, an increase in the exports of manu-
facturers of S1,333. CO., more than 100
per cent Are you not yet answered?
Well. then. take the iron and steel sched-
ule, the highest in the Dingley law. and
see what effect that rate has had on our
export trade in those articles. Three years
under the Dingley law. $337. .7S5. 430; three
years under the Wilson law, Sl50. .6S9, ,73S, an
increase in exports in the highest sehed-
ued item in the highest law in our history
of $207, ,125, ,692. or 15S per cent
We have increased our exports to France
in the past ten years 90 per cent; TO
Germany 125 per cent; to The Netherlands
100 per cent; to Great Britain % per cent,
and to all Europe 81 per cent. Are not
these figures an eloquent ana conclusive
answer to the charge that, because of our
tariff, we can neither buy nor sell as much
abroad we could without it?
And again, they assert that the tarln
should be lowered because things are dearer
under il than they should be, than they
otherwise would be. 1t is the old crusade
Of cheapness over again. The trouble with
our Democratic friends is that they never
learn anything from experience. Ihey
ought to know by this time that cheap
and dear" relative terms ana not
absolute. Things were never so cheap as
under the administration of Grover Cleve-
| land, and yet the people never bought SO
little. Why? Simply because they did not
! cneap, but our people went unclad. FOOD
| was cheap, but they went hungry. Build
| ing materials were cheap, but they did not
build Land was cheap, but they did not
Duy NOW clothing may be higher, but
our people are well dressed. Food may be
higher, but our people are we'll fed. Build
| ing materials may be higher, but we never
built so much. Land has doubled in value,
and never was there more of it exchanged.
Why? Simply because the people have
| the money TO buy with
Prices and Wages.
We learned under Grover Clevelands S.
| regime that a thing was dear at any price
If We did not have the price. And under
his tariff policy we did not have the price.
| Our people were out of employment and
| could not get the price. Therefore, with
things all about never so cheap, yet there
was never much want in our land
Whether thing is cheap or dear, there
fore, depends upon the power to buy, upon
the ability to purchase. Which is better
TO have things very cheap, with scant en-
ployment at low wages, and therefore little
money to buy them with, or to have them
little higher, with full employments at
good wages, and therefore an abundance
or money to buy them with, and COM
PORTABLE surplus left after buying all you
need? The question answers itself. And
II is worthy of recollection too, that the
rise in wages in this country has been
greater than the rise in prices and es-
pecially In the price Of the necessaries of
life.
My authority for this statement is a no
less distinguished parsonage than Carroll
ID. Wright the most masterful statistician
"A very good illustration of this can
De mace Dy taking single individual and
seeing how he would have stood at differ
eht perlodS A Journeyman carpenter re-
celved " day in 1860, $3.50 in 1866. So 10 in
1881, IS in 1896 and s.. As In 1901, and these
are are actual wage rates for the years named
He could have purchased certain ouanti-
ties of commodities necessary for the sun
port of his family. and. taking the same
quantities and the same articles, with vary
ing results. His earnings were $12 $21
$3.50, SIS and 5000 week for the YEAR
named, respectively. After purchasing, the
gwen articles in 1860 he would have had
s2.49 left; in 1866 he would have had sl54
in 1891 he would have had s72l: in 1886 he
, would have had $40, while in 1902 he
would have had $ll1O to spare: and he
extra per day in the latter year for his
own use, day as compared with the time
in 1850 1t is true that real wages to-day
Notwithstanding high prices, are greater
than at any previous period in our history
Cheapness is not the criterion of prosper
ity, nor the sole desideratum in legislat ton
benJamin Harrison. who possessed to a re-
markable degree the faculty of compressne
a whole argument into statement, sum
med up all that can be said on this ques.
5 tion when he remarked that "a cheap coat
|
ne was pre-eminently right. A thing in this
country may be too cheap. 1t is too chear
when the man who makes it cannot carr
an honest American living by making it
What would the farmer get for his produce
II his customers were all paid SWeat-Shor
wages? He must have for his market the
5 postpaid laborers If he would sell hi:
: products at good sum. On the othel
hand the laborer who receives the bes
wages does the best work, eats the bes
food, buys the best clothes, makes the bes
, citizen. Because of this our laborers ar,
the best fed best clothed, best housed, bes
5 educated. most intelligent in the world
with more of comfort in their homes ant
t more hope in their hearts than any mer
5 who ever toiled on earth before. Therefor,
let Us not be deceived by this wil-o'-the
{ wisp of cheapness into the quagmires o
S free trade, where all would be lost.
S And, again, Democrats assert that tn
tariff should be reduced because some o
than they sell at home. Is~that true? 7,
prove 1t they quote the retail price Il
a America and the wholesale price-the pric
/ Europe, which is manifestly unfair. Blu
: suppose it be true, then what? What doe
it prove? Only shrewd Yankee business
: methods in two respects first, manufac
turer selling at a sacrifice in new mar
!, ket in order to introduce his wares, in orde
] to exploit a new field. Second. the marke
D in our own country being glutted, a man
:. | ufacturer selling abroad, even at a sacri
e flee, in order 10 hold his operatives togeth
\ er, to preserve his business organization
|
: plan is as old as trade, as ancient as com
merce. What would our Democrat
e friends have us do? Destroy the factor,
t and transfer the business to Europe? L
S that better for us? For our laborers 70
= our farmers? Manfestly not Even If thi
Y charge be true. which L by no means con
e cede, it is better that We would retain ou
d factories and sell cheaper to them than a
u home, than to transfer the business I
: them and let them sell to al their ow
price. And We have had experience-ou
: markets have been exploited by foreig
t manufacturers.
: Experience Of 1S46.
: In 1916 iron rails sold In the Unite
States for $50 per ton. AS soon as the tari,
c was removed by the Democratic party i
4 1876 English manufacturers reduced tn
- price to $40 per ton, swamped the America
d market, and then, after running that indus
/ try in this country, raised the price to s,
= per ton for iron rails.
:? And that was not our only experienc,
l. Our markets were exploited by the man
= ufacturers of foreign countries at anothe
s time when we were under a tariff revise
l, by the Democratic party. AS far back a
3 1919, Monroe says in his message, referrin
II to the way foreign manufacturers RUNE
q our manufacturing:
n Their manufactures have been shippe
by their manufacturers to the Unite
below their current value at the place {
manufacture. Although this practice ma,
from it's nature, be considered temporar
= or contingent, Ii is not on that accoflr