The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1882-11-02
Does Protection 1ncrea sawages.

g.. !
| From Hon. William Wards Speech in the House o.
faH Representatives, April Is, 1882 7T
| I seek the floor at this time especially to en-
deavor to analyze and, if possible, point out
the fallaces ofone portion of the speech of the
| distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, TNr
Carlisle made during this debate on the 2Sth
and Goth days Of March. The friends Of Pro
lection claim that the chief merit OF that sys-
tenn lies in the fact that it enhances the wages
and, consequently, betters the condition Of
the American mechanic and work ingman and
I | am free to confess that the main strength OF
our position is gone if we fail to make good
! this result llsl nl-,u1if iIp = -rsa.f ol =
The gentleman from Kontacky, MI. Carlislel
| in his speech, attempts 10 show that Protec-
ton does not operate to increase the wages of
the workingman and he cites facts and figures
upon which he POUNDS hisargumsnt. Hesays ;
''In the census year 1860, when the average
rate upon all dutiable goods was 10 per cent
| ad valorem, and the rate upon all goods, dutia
BILE and free, less than 10 per cent, there were
employed in all the mechanical and manufac-
turing industries in this country, consisting of
more than sixehuDdied different, branches,
lt1,311 246 hands, whose wages amounted to
1897 ,S7S ,966; the capital Invested WAS 81 ,009
$50, 715 !; the cost vi material was ISL 1854, $685.
O92,; and the total value OF the product was
81 1856 S61 ,67G. Labor received Il little over
20 per cent. oithe value of the product. In
1879, after nearly 10 years ofhigh Protection,
the number OF hands employed was 2,O53,996
and the wages paid amounted to $775,5S4
$40; the capital invested was 50, ,2S0.769;
the total cost OF material was 81, 4SS,427 ,242;;
and the value of the product was 81, 232, $780,
Az. The excess of the product over the total
COST of labor and material was $685., 313S55,
which was 46.7 per, cent. on the whole amount
little over Is per cent. Of the value OF the pro
duct, near,y 2 per cent less than in 1850, Fl
The gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr, Car
lisle,) is generally 50 candid and so clear that
his opinions always command respect, andhe
is SO learned and so logical that his arguments
invariably arrest atlention.,j But the deduc-
lions he has drawn from the. above figures
are utterly fallacious, and, al analysis shows
that they prove exactly the reverse of the
effect he ascribes TO them, y,,-s.,f, liza Ga
See how plainly this appears from his own
figures In the low tariff era ending in 1860
the total amount Of production was 81 1885,
SOL ,616.o This Was produced by l,3ll .246
hands, who received d total amount Of, wages
of 1878 ,S78, 966, which was 20 per cent. OF the
total product. ,..,t
But in the high protective era ending in
1870 the total products amounted to 81 ,232,-
1926. 442. or nearly. two and one-fifth times
greater than ir the low tariff era and these
were manufactured by @ 53 ,906 hands, or an
increase OF lutte more than one-half as, many
hands as in 1860 and this smaller number OF
hands proportionately received as wages S775,-
3S4 345. which was 331 Der cent. more, per
individual. than in 1860: or, to express 1t more
tersely. the wotkingman or workingwoman
in the protective times marked by 1870. re-
ceived an average OF $3.50 per annum: while
in tba low tariff ner;od marked nv 1850 he ar
she received an average only of $3.50 Der an
49, a., III h'f-s'f1
uuLl, Vi dDOuI OHe-GHlIl lCoo.
r,ho cro,t1,,,or f,.,r, X antucL,, Ioct c;rht
NC S0n VIC ho e 'i1 u41hy wy eiSn'
,,.,.,..T l-...,,, li--.:.,e 10 .E,ai "a