The daily sentinel., 1912-11-02
Fallacies OF His Argument Dis
sected in Counter Appeal
to Merchants.
FREE TRADE NOT PROPOSED
Panlcs Occur Without Regard to Tar
IN RevIsion-Business Men Direct
Ing the Wilson Campaign.
To the Merchants and Business Mel
OF the United States:

Wilson.
1 To bark back twenty years in Amer
lean industry is to deal with ancient
history. During this score OF years
American industries have advanced so
I far In competing power that com
parison even with 1890 is ridiculous.
Z In that year our exports of manufac-
] lures we're less than two hundred mil
lions in annual value; today they are
at the rate of twelve hundred millions,
q gain OF 500 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?
II Is poor time to cry distress when
We are exporting steel manufactures
at the rate OF million dollars daily.
During Mr.. Clevelands first admin
istration. 1855 to 1889, there was no
panic-there was only prosperity. But
Mr.. Wanamaker forgets this. Mr..
Harrison. a Republican, succeeded in
1899. serving till 1893. During this
time Mr.. Wanamaker himself was in
President Harrison's cabinet, and It
was then the conditions matured
which resulted In the panic Of 1898.
four months after Mr.. Cleveland took
ONCE the second time.
Mr.. Wanamaker quotes from various
sources certain records of distress, but
neglects to say that every one of them
bears a date not less than six months
before the tariff bill Of 1894 became
law and. as matter of fact, before
It's terms were known.
The truth is that neither Repub-
lican administration nor n high tariff
is any protection against panics, and
they occur. as everybody knows. ex-
cept Mr.. wanamaher. quite without
regard to tariff changes. Our very
worst panics have occurred under Re
publican administrations.
In 1905 the Republican party in its
platform declared ''unequivocally for
the revision OF the tariff" but this
promise, soon so recklessly broken,
had no deterrent effect upon improve
meut in business conditions. 1t can
not therefore be said that the mere
threat OF tariff revision causes dis
treas, for there was no doubt in 1908
not only that the tariff was to be re
vised. but that 1t was to be revised
downward
Ignoring tho Present.
Most important, however, in Mr..
Wanamaker's letter Is his failure 10
refer to existing conditions. He prom
ises all sorts OF disaster in a very
general way, but has nothing to say
obout current facts OF industry. For
example, It has been well 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-
tives was elected IN 1910 on that spe-
cial issue. That house passed a series
of tariff measures. some of them over
the presidents veto. On each OF these
measures number OF Progressive Re
publicans voted with the Democrats.
One of these bills reduced the duty on
steel Yet. although a revision of the
steel schedule was and Is pending. the
steel industry has revived, prices are
Mr.. Wanamaker's point OF view. large
Investments are now being made in
new steel plants.
II the danger that Mr.. Wanamaker
foresees is real, how is II that these
Investments proceed? How is It that
manufacturers all over the country
are increasing their plants?
Mr. Wanamaker seems ignorant
also OF the actual labor conditions.
High wages are not necessarily sign
OF prosperity. As Professor Fisher
points out, century and half ago
laborers In Rhode Island received
wage OF $40 daily. but II took four
days work to buy pair Of shoes.
Nor are high wages the result OF the
protective tariff The Lawrence strike
brought out this fact vividly There
the textile manufacturers have a very
high protective tariff to favor them.
but the wages of their employees were
shown to be indefensibly low. A fair
comparison Is that between England
and Germany, both thickly populated,
nne having no protection and the 9th
or high protection How do wages
stand in these countries today Those
In Germany are II per cent lower
/ than English wages, and not only so,
but the cost of living In Germany is
II per cent higher. so that the pro.
tscted German workman earns the
I smaller wage aud pays the higher
I cost
I Free Trade Bo9y.
ls 1t not truly ridiculous for Mr.
/ Wanamaker to raise the bogy of free
trade No party advocates that Mr..
4 Wanamaker must know that-the DEM
ocratic cotton and woolen bills are not
free trade measures In any sense.
The fact is that the Republican plat.
Subscribe tor The Daily Seatiuel.