Music Trade Review

Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
THE MUSIC TRADE REVIEW.
meanwhile spends our money in another
country. Should we not ask, for the privi-
lege of supplying us, some reciprocal privi-
leges in return ?
Suppose, for illustration, that the Jap
pays his attention seriously towards the
construction of pianos. No one who has
studied his phenomenal advance should
question his ability if seriously applied to
building pianos—good pianos at that. He
applies his hand dexterously at all occupa-
tions, and what would the production of a
hundred thousand pianos annually be to
Japan, a country where labor only receives
a remuneration daily of a few yen, which
correspond to our pennies? Would not
many of our dealers purchase Japanese
pianos?
Some men will say, Well, if they can pro-
duce so much cheaper we claim the privi-
lege of buying of them or of anyone else in
the world. That is all right in theory, but
unless the workmen receive employment in
this country how will they obtain money
with which to purchase anything.
Japan, when fully equipped with the
latest machinery, will be one of the most
potent industrial forces in the markets of
the world. It is well for every one, work-
man and manufacturer, to consider these
matters.
It is true that the financial question is
the dominant one of the campaign. It has
been made so by recent occurrences, but
protection is still just as necessary to-day
for the enlargement—for the upbuilding—
for the maintenance—of American indus-
tries and for the protection of home labor,
as it ever was in our history.
#-—#
No trade=paper bulldozing.
No advertising payments in
advance.
No monetary loans to support
newspaper mendicancy.
#—#
The hot wave of the past week seems to
have seriously affected the "Musical
Times."
Its effervescence anent the Haflet & Da-
vis affairs surely could only have originat-
ed in an overheated brain. There is a cer-
tain frothiness pervading its articles which
are seriously suggestive of hydrophobia.
Can it be that the "Musical Times" has
been exposed.
We fail to see why any publication which
is in touch or in sympathy with the indus-
trial and commercial elements of America
can take such an inopportune time to in-
dulge in serious criticism upon a reputable
firm that has grounded on financial shoals
and is trying its best to get off the rocks
by offering a settlement to its creditors of
a hundred cents on the dollar with interest.
It is an admitted fact—a fact which is
fully realized by every manufacturing con-
cern in America—that we have had mighty
hard conditions to contend with during
the past few years.
A concern could plan a certain campaign,
but events which have subsequently ma-
terialized, not due in the slightest to their
mismanagement or inefficiency, have de-
molished entire plans for a projected cam-
paign.
It is a well-known fact that many firms
in order to raise money at certain intervals
have sold pianos at retail at ridiculously
low figures. As far as we are able to glean
from the "Musical Times" ebullitions, it
seems to be highly enraged, incensed and
all that, first because the Hallet & Davis
Co. failed.
That is bad; probably no one regrets it
more than the members of the Hallet &
Davis Co. themselves.
Second, because they sold goods at low
prices—another part of this business which
Mr. Maynard should have consulted the
"Musical Times" about.
Third, they have failed, and the mem-
bers of the concern have had the nerve to
make the proposition to their creditors to
settle for one hundred cents on the dollar.
If the offer had been for 25 cents prob-
ably the "Times" would have weakened,
but that one hundred cents just stiffened
the "Times" vertebrae.
It seems to us in all seriousness that the
paper is exhibiting not only lamentably poor
taste but a lack of sound judgment as well
in its onslaught upon the evident honest
intentions of the Hallet & Davis corpora-
tion. The "Times" again blames them for
nor having a lot of cash on hand. If they
had been blessed with a plethora of cash we
presume the failure would have been pre-
vented. And suppose the fact of the Hal-
let & Davis Co. continuing in business
conduces towards making competition
keener in Chicago, what then ?
Is there any crime in that?
If all firms could go on making large,
round, handsome, juicy profits with little
exertion, in a little while the chief business
of the trade would be clipping coupons in-
stead of selling pianos.
Considering tne matter from purely an
impartial standpoint, what course could be
more honorable than for a defunct concern
to make a proposition to their creditors to
pay dollar for dollar for its indebtedness?
We have an illustration in New Yoik.
In 1893 Hardman, Peck & Co. went down
in the financial crash of that year. Their
liabilities were heavy—something over
$400,000. They effected a settlement with
their creditors to run a trifle over three
years, paying one hundred cents on the dol-
lar, with interest. Thus far Hardman,
Peck & Co. have met every payment and
have only one more to make when their en-
tire indebtedness will have been wiped off
their books, their creditors having been
paid in full, with interest.
At the time of the Hardman, Peck & Co.
failure some of the papers in New York
were most abusive in their utterances to-
wards the integrity of the members of fhe
Hardman, Peck & Co. corporation. The
editors of those papers have subsequently
been forced to fall on their knees begging
for Hardman, Peck & Co.'s patronage.
THE REVIEW was the only paper which
took the ground that it was best for the
creditors to follow the course which they
did. Subsequent results have proven
that our views at that time were correct.
Of course some of the local competitors of
Hardman, Peck & Co. thought it exceed-
ingly hard that they should again be placed
in competition with an assigned corpora-
tion. However, things in this world are
not at all times just as we would desire them.
That is a New York illustration.
Let us take a Chicago illustration.
It was rumored that a Chicago trade pa-
per was sold for a certain sum, payments for
which were to be made in regular weekly
installments for a term of ten years, there
being little or no money in the transfer.
We will suppose that the party who pur-
chased the publication commenced to run
advertisements so low that it was impos-
sible for other journals to meet it as far as
price was concerned. In other words, say
something like $50.00 for a quarter page a
year. The purchasing party was compelled
to do this in order to raise money to meet
his obligations.
What would the "Musical Times" say to
that?
Does it not make a difference whose bull
is gored.
Would not the other papers who were
forced to meet such competition be justified
in making a complaint to the one who made
a contract which was to run ten years. ?
Honestly, we think the papers would
have no cause for complaint, as in the
strictest sense it would be none of theii
affairs so long as the contracting parties
were satisfied. We assume the same posi-
tion towards the Hallet & Davis corpora-
tion. We think the creditors will, after
look ing carefully into the affairs of the cor-
poration, take such action as they deem ex-
pedient. This we are of the opinion that