New Britain herald. [microfilm reel] (New Britain, Conn.) 1890-1976, 1916-11-07
ITO BRIGHTEN CHILDREN ,,
Prof. Fisher of Yale, Explodes Few
Old Fogey Ideas About the Tory.

Irving Fisher. head of the depart
ment of economies of Yale. a noted
authority on the tariff and an indie
pendent in politics, is interesting
and Instructive
Foreign competition after the
war is a good DOGGY to brighten chill
dren with. Why confne our fear to
| '6O,OOO,O 600 trained and disciplined
men of Europe as does the republi-
can publicity committee, when there
are hundreds of millions of Asiatics
who work for lower wages? And
why hasn't free trade England been
long since ruined by low wage India
Amy sophomore in economics
| knows that both parties to a trade
gain; that trade is reciprocal; that
anything that increases imports also
increases exports and makes more
| Jobs than it takes away. Yet, accord
ing to the latest republican campaign
| doctrine the Underwood tariff not
| only will cause bread lines after the
war but did so before the war and
put 100000 men out of work.
THE facts are: The Underwood
act was on the statute books only 1 4
months before the war; that the eff
fects so far as there were any in this
period, were good, not bad; there was
| less unemployment and more business
activity than before the act was pass
ed; bank clearings, barometers of
trace. speeded up from Z to 10 per
cent the depression and unemploy-
ment to which the republicans refer
date back to the financial stringency
of the summer of 1913: the same de-
preston and unemployment existed in
other countries; that between the pas
sages of the act and the outbreak of
war our imports averaged s161,OOO,-
600 month as against $145, 900
previously; this slight increase was a
benefit so far as it went but if it, or
any part of 1t, could be considered an
INJURY 1t is on the face Of it too trif-
ling to explain 100000 men thrown
out of work; Uncle Sam is a multi
Millionaire with an income of $685.
00,000,OO0 a year to whom a million
dollars is as trifling as five cents a
month is to a laborer with $3.50 a
year.
THE republican claims are in fact,
as absurd as would be a demo cratic
claim that our prosperity is all due
to the Underwood tariff We must
not lose perspective. Our prosperity
is not due to the tariffs, nor in any
| large measure to the war. for our
|
cent. of our total internal commerce.
Our prosperity is chiefly due to the
| natural recovery from the world de-
preston Of 1913-1914, helped greatly
by the federal reserve act, which
gave confidence to small business men
all over the country that they could
get loans when needed.
'"The truth is that the ge-earner
has III general made less progress
when our tariff has been high than
when it has been low. and that wages
in protected industries have ranked
with the lowest in the country. In
Europe we find the countries with
the highest tariff having the lowest
wages. Before the war German
wages averaged II per cent. lower
than English, and the German work
men had to pay II per cent. more
for the necessaries of life.
"And who are these would-be
champions of labor, who ask it's votes
for another Payne Aldrich tariff?
Not the laboring men themselves, not
disin tereSted students of economics.
They are those whose Special in
terestss would be served by another
Payne-Aldrich tariff. In some in
stances, at least, as I happen to know,
these interests are trying to coerce
their employees to vote for Hughes.
Must we revive the tariff scandals?
| The tariff is not an important econ
omic issue, for our foreign trade is
not and never will be lage per cent.
| of our internal commerce.; but the
tariff is a very important moral is
| sue. 1t is really wrong that those
who personally benefit by the tariff
| should dictate it's schedules. For a
generation the protected interests
| have paid great sums into the repub
| lican campaign funds and then de-
manded tariff favors in return. This
| virtual purchase of tariff legislation
| became a stench in the nostrils Of
| conscientious republicans. Mr.. Taft
at once called a special session of Con-
| gress to reduce the tariff; he failed
| because his own party would not or
could not break away from their
financial hackers. Mr.. Taft, after re-
luctantly signing the Payne-Aldrich
tariff admitted that some Of it's
schedules were indefensible. Have
we forgotten the wool top scandal,
or the Littaur Cannon glove schedule
| scandal? Have we forgotten that
! when the Un1 erwood act was under
discussion, Mr. Wilson had to drive
out this same old pernicious lobby?
81 have, personally, had inside in
formation concerning such sinister eff
forts in the wooden. the carpet and
the hat industry. One wooden manu-
facturer with a New England con-
J science told me that he would not
be a party to such efforts. Even
Carnegie and Havemeyer, although
beneficaries under the tariff, spoke
out against 1t as unnecessary as
the mother of trusts and as fraud
upon the public
IT have, with my own eyes, seen
speeches that were written for con-
gress1nen by agents of the protected