The Penn's Grove record., 1912-11-01
The WANAMAKER
PROSPERITY PLEA
Fallacies Of His Argument Dis
; sected In Counter Ap-
peal to Merchants.
FREE TRADE NOT PROPOSED.
Panics Occur Without Regard to Tariff
Revision-Business Men Directing
the Wilson Campaign.

mGn DlTeSIlnQ
the Wilson Campaign.
To the Merchants and Business Men
Of the United States:
Mr.. John Wanamaker has issued a
mote of warning" against the ''destruc-
ton of industries which he says will
follow the election of Woodrow Wilson.
To bark back twenty years in Amer
ican industry is to deal with ancient
history. During this score of years
American industries have advanced so
far in competing power that a com
parison eve 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
at the rate Of twelve hundred millions,
a 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 a poor time to cry distress when
we are exporting steel manufactures
at the rate of a 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. Mr.. Har-
rison, a Republican, succeeded In 1899,
serving till 1898. During this time Mr..
Wanamaker himself was in Presi-
dent Harrison's cabinet, and 1t was
then the conditions matured which re-
suited in the panic of 1893, four months
after Mr.. Cleveland took Office the sec
ond time.
MI. Wanamaker quotes from various
sources ceitain 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 a
law and. as a matter of fact, before
It's terms were known.
The truth is hat neither a Repub-
lican administration nor a 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
the revision of the tariff" but this
promise, 500 so recklessly broken,
had no deterrent effect upon improve
ment in business conditions. 1t 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 a very
general way, but has nothing to say
about 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-
dves 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 a number of Progressive Re
publicans voted with the Democrats.
One Of these bills reduced the duty IN
steel. Yet, although a revision of the
steel schedule was and is pending, 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
1Oresees is real how is 1t that these in
vestments proceed? How is it that
manufacturers all over the country are
Increasing their plants?
MI. Wanamaker seems ignorant also
Of the actual labor conditions. High
wages are not necessarily a sign Of
prosperity. AS Professor Fisher points
out, a century and a half ago laborers
In Rhode Island received a wage Of
$40 daily, but 1t took four days work
10 buy a pair Of shoes. MOI are high
wages a result of the protective tariff.
The Lawrence strike brought out this
fact wildly. There the textile manu-
facturers have a very high protective
tariff to favor them. but the wages of
their employees were shown to be in
defensibly low. A fair comparison is
that between England and Germany,
both thickly populated, n having no
protection and the other high protec-
ton. 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 protected German
workman earns the smaller wage and
pays the higher cost
Free Trade 5osy.
Is 1t not truly ridiculous for Mr..
Wanamaker to raise the bogy of free
trade! No party advocates that. Mr..
Wanamaker must know that the Dem
ocratic cotton and wooden bills are not
free trade measures in any sense.
The fact is that the Republican plat