The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1912-11-01
FaIIaCies OF His Argument Dis
seCted in Counter Appeal
to Merchants.
FREE TRADE NOT PROPOSED
Panics Occur Without Regard to Tar
IN Revlson-Business Men Oireet-
Ina the Wilson Campaign,

40 lut ohN
of the United States:
Mr. John Wanamaker has Issued
mote of warning against the de
struction OF industries" which he says
will follow the election of Woodro"
Wilson.
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
far in competing power that com
parison even with 1890 is ridiculous.
In that year our exports of manuiac'
lures we're less than two hundred mil
lions in annual value; today they are
at the rate Of twelve hundred millions,
a gain of 600 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 a poor time to cry distress when
We are exporting steel manufactures
AT the rate OF million dollars daily.
During Mr.. Cleveland's first admin
istration. 1885 TO 1889, there was no
panic-there was only prosperity But
Mr Wanamaker forgets this. MT
Harrison, a Republican, succeeded IN
1899. serving till 1898. During this
time Mr.. Wanamaker himself was in
President Harrison's cabinet and 1t
was then the conditions matured
which resulted In the panic OF 1893.
four months after Mr. Cleveland took
Office the second time.
Mr.. Wanamaker quotes from various
sources certain records OF distress but
neglects 20 say that every one OF them
bears a date not less than six months
before the tariff bill OF 1894 became a
law and, es a matter OF fact, before
It's terms were known.
The truth is that neither Repuo-
lcan administration nor high tarih
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 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
ment in business conditions. II 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
ises 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-
tives was elected In 1910 on that spe-
cial issue That house passed series
of tariff measures some OF them over
the presidents veto On each OF these
measures a number OF Progressive Re
publicans voted with the Democrats.
One of these bills reduced the duty on
steel Yet. although n revision OF the
steel schedule was and ! lending, the
steel industry has revived, prices are
advancing and. strangest of all. from
Mr. Wanamaker's point Of view large
Investments are now being made In
new steel plants.
If 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 q sign
OF prosperity As Professor Fisher
points out. century and half ago
Iaborers In Rhode Island received a
wage OF $40 daily. but It took four
DAYS wo.k to buy a 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 very
high protective tariff to favor them,
but the wages OF their employees were
shown to be lndefensihly low. fair
comparison is that between England
and Germany, both thickly populated.
one having no protection and the 9TH
er 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-
tected German workman earns The
smaller wage and pays the higher
cost.
Free Trade Bosy.
Is it not truly ridiculous for MI.
Wanamaker to raise the bogy of free
trade? No party advocates that Mr.
Wanamaker must know that the Dem
ocra+ic cotton and woolen bills are not