Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1882-01-12

nsed in Pennsylvania in 1870 of
A 500, ,447 pounds. The whole mum
Der OF persons employed to work it Is
Ii, ,632. Philadelphia hal in 1870 to
work up its share of the above stock
II, 252 persons, and In proportion to the
persons employed the share Of wool and
its substitutes consumed would be in
1870. 30,037, ,432 pounds. These are
actual figures, 10 which add Mr.. Dob
sons rate of increase for eleven years
of 4 per cent. per annum and we have
An increase Of "A per cent. or l3,40, 900
making the grand total used in Phila-
delphia in 1881 of 1901, ,432 pounds.
The figures given for fennsylvania are
the actual figures taken from the CEN
sns report of 1870 and for Philadelphia
the proportionate rats in proportion TO
the whole number Of persons employed.
take it for granted that the country
people are about ~ smart as the city
people therefore the figures given will
be nearly correct az it is possible to get
them Mr., Dobson says: The yield in
yarn from the mule will not exceed
half the weight as wool aud cotton COM
bined the shriDkage averaging fully 30
per cent. from the raw material. While
| conceded this much to him, At the
same time think it large shrinkage
when IL large portion OF tho wool come -
to the market washed and the cotton
will not loose over 10 per cent? and by
doubling the amount used in Philadel-
phia we find it to be only 81 ,354, S64
pounds Of wool and its substitutes used
in 1880 and not quite up to Mr.. Dob
son statement OF 150,WO,O0O pounds.
Mr.. Dobson then goes into q calcula-
ton of the spindies in operation and
says There were working in Phiiade~
phia in 1880, $4,000" Then he tries
to drag in delaware and Montgomery
counties and if not watched would put
in all Pennsylvania and as much OF
New Jersey Che wouldn't have any
thing south OF Mason and nixon's line
| ''tor they lack both honor aid integ-
rity") to make his point think | know
the man and II | do would not trust
HIM any further than can throw my
i've year, old bull by the tail, The CEN
sus report of 1870 gives Pennsylvania
$40, ~ mule splndles and %, ,23' worsted
spiudles. Now add Mr.. Dobson's rate
OF increase up to 1880 and we
have total of i16, 1853 spindles.
| hiladelphias share in 1880
will be }22, l3i add per cent. and in
1881 it is J35,0lS spindles. Then now
according to Mr.. Dobson's = own method
OF half pound per spindle and 800 days,
and we find the amount of wool and
substitutes used in Philadelphia 30 be
Just 100, sos, 800 pounds and not as Mr..
Dobson stated before the National Tariff
Convention, ljUO'O,0 900 pounds. Well
so, ,N0,OUO is not 1nu III TOO men OF Mr..
Dobson' = caiibre, he's big gun he is
and a smooth bore at tha', one that lets
things come out easy right or wrong.
My opinion is that the first calculation
Is nearest the actual amount consumed
as given by the census of 1870 with the
AZ per cent added which is the amount
of increase given by MIR. Arrott in his
report and ue says, "it is TO be con-
sidered however that the number OF
hands employed in 1880 in the indus
tries embraced in the tables was more
than AZ per cent. greater than in 1870
BY the census OF 1870 see page GIT
Compendium there were lO6, l66 persons
of all ages and sexes employed at man
ufacturing, mechanical and mining in
dustries in Philadelphia and to this
add according to Mr.. Dobsons own es-
timate for | years at 4 per cent or "A
per cent ou the above and we find the
number in 1881 to be l52,S79 not quite
up to Mr.. Dobsons corrected statement
of 2OO, 900 yet---Mr. Arrott only makes
the increase AZ per cent Then $1,000
common work people are Of no account
in the estimation of such monied aris-
tocrats as Mr.. Dobson except when he
wants their votes to keep tari1 in
force that reduces their pay 70 per cent
in ten years and puts profit of 81 per
cent on his investments in mills and
IN achinery in his pocket. My own
opinion is that he would even ask mig
gers to do IT, His ideas must be Of an
elastic character and the effects of heat
generated IN that National Tariff, con-
vention that had to sit with closed
I doors (that would admit one partner of
firm from the New England States
and refuse admittance 10 the other
partner, it must have been a kind of a
star chambe that only cares to hear
onc side of q question: the gas that was
g". rated and the spontaneous COM
binstion created by the efforts of the
uislnbers had 80 overheated the place
chat Mr.. Dubson's s ideas became so ex-
panded that he had no control over
them and il would hardly be charita-
Bile to hold him accountable for many
misstatements which he made. 1t was
during the campaign OF 1880 that this
same or some other James DobsOn was
reported to have addressed political
meeting in Philadelphia and told the
working men present the great advan-
tages that would inure to them from
the tariff OF 1867 by increasing their
wages. The same paper that reported
the speech said there was gin line 1000
workmen from one of the great wO0len
mills of Philadelphia and it said that
every one would vote the Republican
ticket This latter part disputed and
published my sletter for which | was
!, taken to task and got blowed up for
| expressing my opinions. Yet thank
!, my stars | still survive, Is it not just
little cheeky in Mr.. Dobson to ascribe
the great increase of persons employed
at manufacturing in Philadelphia in
1880 to the effects Of the present tariff
. and the small number SO employed in
1860 to the three per cent trade system
that never existed? He might as we'll
say the present tariff makes people eat
, Tore and makes the land produce more
, bushels of wheat or that it was the
J cause of the great drought last season; 1t
J IS just about as mucu effect on one as
on the other. He might also say it
was this same tariff that caused our i'm
, ports of foreign articles to increase as 1t
mas done from an average Of ten years
under what Mr.. Dobson calls free
, trade. From 1856 they averaged per
apnum $303, 1876 yet in 1880 they
amounted to $3.50, ,8S9,O56. My idea
was that tariffs. were enacted to keep
foreign articles out of our country and
yet we find in short period our i'm
ports have increased about two and q
half times and our exports have raised
from an average for ten years from 1856
under free trade from 1904, 1884 ,572 to
1888, 294, 246 in 1880. May we just not as
well ascribe these latter to the tariff as