Eastern Colorado times., 1912-11-01


carlson even with 1890 is ridiculous.
n that year our exports of manufac-
lures .were less than two hundred mil
dons in annual value: today they are
1t 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
sessfully competing on their ground?
It is a poor time to cry distress when
We are exporting steel manufactures
1t the rate of million dollars daily.
During Mr.. Cleveland's first admin
;stration, 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 1t
was then the conditions matured
which resulted in the panic Of 1893.
four months after Mr.. Cleveland took
pf1ce 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 a
law and, as a matter OF fact, before
Its terms were known.
The truth is that neither Repub-
lican administration nor a high tariff
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
nent in business conditions. 1t can
not therefore be said that the mere
threat Of tariff revision causes dis
:ress. for there was no doubt In 1908
rot only that the tariff was to be re-.
vised. but that 1t 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.
Democratic house Of representa-
lives was elected in 1910 on that spe-
cial issue. That house passed a series
sf 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 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 1t that these
Investments proceed? How is 1t that
manufacturers all over the country.
are increasing their plants?
Mr.. Wanemaker seems ignorant
also Of the actual labor conditions.
High wages are not necessarily sign
Of prosperity. AS Professor Fisher
points out. a century and half ago
laborers in Rhode Island received
wage Of $40 daily. but 1t 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.
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 Boay.
Is It not truly ridiculous for Mr.
Wanamaker to raise the bogy of free
trade? No party advocates that. Mr..
Wanamaker must know that the Dem.