New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-01-29

May we not say that the make of pig iron
did increase from $4,000 tuns in 1872 to 10000
IN 1915, with the strongest probability that the
statement in round numbers of 100000 for 1913
and 100000 for 1915 is probably correct ! And
may we not, on these data, rest the prevalent
belief that the trade was remarkably de-
pressed during the whole period between
1916 and 1857 Mr.. Wells's contradictory
facts on this point thus go to the wall
and his percentages, averages, ana tlilnple-
rig array of dates and quantities stand 1uLy
exposed to the charge that nothing lies IKE
figures, when used in support OF such para
dox as we find in the following sentence
which is the corollary of his calculations
" The progress of the country through what
eve may term the strength of its elements OF
vitality is independent OF legislation"
On page of his Report, when the Commits
sioner is demonstrating the growth OF wealth
under our war tariff, which he thinks higher
than any we ever had before, and higher than
that of any civilized country in modern times
| lin which he is terribly mistaken, howeVer),
he shows from the figures of the American
| Iron and Steel Association that the product OF
pig iron has risen in the United States from
,6O4 tuns in 1868 to 1,55O,0O0 in 1S6S-an in
crease of 63i per cent in five consecutive years,
which is an average, and fair one, because
remarkably uniform, of fraction over 10 per
cent per annum.
| We have another objection to Mr.. Weiss
| treatment of the history of our iron products.
! We find it in his incessant endeavor to prove
! that no legislation has had any sort of effect
upon the growth of the trade. According to
him and his theory, it has been uniform.
whether the tariff was high or low, and
whether the condition of the country was
" one of war or peace, the increase of the pro-
"ducton has been at the average of about
eight per cent per annum, or more than
! double the rates of the increase of the popu-
"laton.p The Commissioner delights in para
dox, and the more absurd, the better he seems
| to relish it. Uniform Can anybody look at
diagram representing the earthquake-llke
| looking fluctuations in the product, and
the prices, too, OF the consecutive
years of any period of ten, twenty
or thirty, in the history of American iron,
without amazement at this statementP Can it
be possible that the Commissioner, when he
calculates averages for a large number OF
years, can impose upon himself the idea that
the mean or average which he reaches by
arithmetic means uniformity in the process !
Yet he does take the respective products OF
1910 and 1910, and somehow ciphers out
uniform increase in those thirty years of 10 to
If per cent per annum. We have seen some
wonderful sleght-ofhand performances done
with figures, but hardly any so atrociOus as
this. But what may not man be driven to
who has history and experience to contradict
and paradoxes to provel
All the errors of Mr.. Weiss report on the
history of our iron product, and all the proofs
of the respective effects of protection and nom
protection of this industry, will be best seen by
the tabular statement which we now submit.
Starting with the usually estimated product of
1910, we make the first period reach the year
1892. In these twenty-five years our iron had
such protection as the war of 1912 and the
tariffs of ls24 and 1928 could aflord-badly
broken ND, indeed, between the years 1915 and
1924, but we are cOntented to call it pro-
tective period The non protective period i'm
mediately succeeding reached from 1888, the
date of the Compromise act to 1912.
We count this ten years Then follows
four years of protection which was
ample and adequate and we compare it
with the period covered by the act OF 1916,
which lasted ten and a half years; but as it
was followed by the tariff of 1857, which made
but little change upon iron, we give eleven years
as the length of it's run. Next we give the
three years from 1857 to 1860 for another non
protective group but because these were so
much alike, they are repeated in fourteen
year term. from 1916 to 1862 and this is followed
by the last of the trials that protection has
had under the existing tariff, which we date
from 1868, to escape from the disturbing effects
of the first two years of the Rebellion. But
lest any one should object to the interval
allowed, and, we think, fairly allowed, we add
these two rejected years to the group in the
last line of our table.
PRODUCTION or PG.TRoS IN THE UNITED STATES IN PE.
RODS, WITH ITS FLUCTUATIONS UNDER OPPOSITE
SYSTEMS OF IMPORT DUTIES
1910 1900
1882 100000 Increase in % years. 81 per per
1872 2i5OOO in years per cent per
1916 600 Increase IN years 81 per cent per annpm
1890 991O Increase in IL years, per cent per annu
1893 Increase in years 10 per cent per annum
1868 $4,000 Increase years per cent per annum
These figures, in spite of us, do injustice to
the rule of protection in the development of
American iron. For want of the data that
would justly give the history, we are obliged
to burden the % years of the first period with
at least 10 years of free trade, which carries
the average of increase down to Ct per cent.
Compound, we have no doubt that the truth
would reach double that figure. And the same
inherent rise of averages credits the IA years
of the tariffs of 1916 and 1857 with an annual
increase of It per cent, which, though next to
nothing, especially when compared with the