New Ulm review., 1912-10-30
The WANAmlkER
PROSPERITY Plea
falIacies Of His Argument Dis
I, sected in Counter Appeal
to Merchants.
FREE TRADE NOT PROPOSED
Panlcs Occur Without Regard to Tar
Iff Revlslon-6uslnsss Men Direct.
Ing the Wilson Campaign.

IN NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. Men Olrec
Ing the Wilson Campaign.
To the Merchants and Business Me-
of the United States:
Mr.. John Wanamaker has issued
mote Of warning" against the de
struction Of industries" which he say
will follow the election Of Woodrow
Wilson.
!. To bark back twenty years In Amer
ican industry 10 to deal with ancien
history. During this score Of year
American industries have advanced sc
far in competing power that = com
parison even with 1890 is ridiculous
In that year our exports Of manufac
lures were less than two hundred mil
lions In annual value; today they are
ut the rate Of twelve hundred millions,
gain of 900 per cent.
How is disaster to come from the
competition on our ground of those
manufacturers with whom we are sue
cessfully competing on their ground?
1t is poor time to cry distress when
we are exporting steel manufactures
at the rate of million dollars daily
During Mr. Cleveland's first admin
lstration, 1885 to 1889, there was no
panic-there was only prosperity. But
Mr.. Wanamaker forgets this. Mr..
Harrison. = Republican. succeeded in
1899, serving till 1898. During this
time Mr.. Wanamaker himself was in
President Harrison's cabinet. and it
vas then the conditions matured
which resulted in the panic Of 1898.
four months after Mr.. Cleveland took
ONCE tho second time.
! Mr.. Wanamaksr quotes from various
sources certain records Of distress. but
neglects 70 Say that every one Of them
bears . date not less than six months
before the tariff bill Of 1894 became
law and, 20 . matter Of fact, before
Its terms were known.
The truth 10 that neither Repub-
lican administration nor Z high tariff
Is any protection against panics, and
they occur. as everybody knows. ex-
cept Mr.. Wanamaker. quite without
regard to tariff changes. Our very
worst panics have occurred under Re
publican administrations.
In 1908 the Republican party in its
platform declared "unequivocally for j
the revision Of the tariff" but this
promise, soon 80 recklessly broken,
had no deterrent effect upon improve
ment in business conditions. It can
not therefore be said that the mere |
threat Of tariff revision causes dis
tress, for there was no doubt in 1908 |
not only that the tariff was to be re-
vised, 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 prom
lses all sorts of disaster In . very
general way, but has nothing to say
about current facts Of industry. For
example, It has been we'll known since
1910 that the public demanded the
downward revision Of the tariff which
Mr.. Taft promised and later denied.
A Democratic house Of representa-
lives was elected in 1910 on that spe-
eial issue. That house passed . series
Of tariff measures. some of them over
The presidents veto On each Of these
measures q number Of Progressive Re-
publicans voted with the Democrats.
One Of these bills reduced the duty on
steel. Yet. although a revision Of the
pteel schedule was and Is pending. the
steel industry has revived, prices are
advancing and. strangest Of all, from
Mr.. Wanamakers point of view, large
are now being made in
lew steel plants.
If the danger that Mr.. Wanamaker
'oresees is real, how Is 1t that these
Investments proceed? How is it that
all over the country
ire increasing their plants?
Mr.. Wanamaker. seems ignorant
llso of the actual labor conditions.
High wages are not necessarily sign
Il prosperity. As Professor Fisher
,oints out, a century and a half ago
aborers in Rhode Island received a
wage Of SO daily, but 1t took four
lays WOTh 70 Uuy d pair VI oHOeCS |
lor are high wages the result Of the !
protective tariff. The Lawrence strike
brought out this fact vividly. There
he textile manufacturers. have a very ,
Ugh protective tariff to favor them,
'ut the wages of their employees were
hown to be indefensibly low. A fair
is that between England ,
nd Germany, both thickly populated,
ne having no protection and the 9th
r high protection. How do wages
tand in these countries today? Those
n Germany are II per cent lower I
han English wages, and not only so,
ut the cost Of living in Germany is
7 per cent higher, so that the pro-
ected German workman earns the 4
mailer wage and pays the higher
ost
Free Trade Boey. 4
Is it not truly ridiculous for Mr.
vanamaker to raise the bogy of free !
rade? No party advocates that. Mr.