Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1884-11-07

The New York Tribune publishes,
and all the other high tariff papers
dutifully copy (most generally with
out giving credit }, a table Of COM
parative wages here and abroad,
which is rather an interesting thing
in its way. 1t is announced as SUI
fficient to "clinch the argument in
favor Of the American policy Of pro-
tection," and is said to be drawn
from that we'll of unfailing veracity,
the consular reports. The first state
ment Of this wonderful table is that
workmen in 80 occupations in New
York now earn an average of $11.97
weekly, while the workmen in the
very same 35 occupations now earn
in London an average of 1918 week
ly. Had the Investigation only
stopped here, after eliciting results
practically the same as those arrived
at by the Massachusetts bureau Of
statistics, something good might
have been made of it by ignoring as
usual the difference in the cost of
living, and claiming that the whole
margin, the comparative dearth of
capital, the greater demand Of labor,
and all the rest of it, was due to
protection. But in order to round
out an article with an imposing ar
ray of figures, some additional COM
parsons are made which have a
good deal of boomerang about them.
" The official comparisons" says the
prideful Tribune, are not confined
to New York for this country, but
include Chicago, where the wages
paid, as in most interor cities, are
higher than in New York; in 81
occupations the average at Chicago
is 1854 weekly, against $12 at New
York. And again, in France gen.
orally, the average in 81 occupations
is only s5.19, and in Germany
generally only 1884, against 1855
in England and s12.22 in New York
in the same occupation" Where
upon the Tribune and its echoes do
greatly laud and glorify the high
est kind of tariff, since it is able
to SO increase the wages of the
American workingman. Now it is
just as useless to tell these gentlemen
that protection does not and cannot
fix the rate of wages as it is to try
and convince Scion Chase that the
government cannot create values by
stamping figures on bills of paper.
But it is entirely proper and may
be not without utility to invite their
attention to the logic of their figures.
Let us admit with them, for the
moment, for arguments sake and
not because it is true, that the value
of protective system is determined
by the rates of wages in countries
some of which have and some have
not adopted it. Let US assume that
the one and sufficient explanation
why wages are II per cent higher
in certain selected occupations in
New York than they are in London
is that the United States follows
the protective system and England
has abandoned it. Then, by their
own reasoning, will they please ex-
plain the rest of the table, every item
Of which is dead against them. Eng
land has free trade, France has a
moderate protective tariff then why is
the average of weekly wages in the
latter country only S5.19 as against
$685. in England? Again, Germany
in 1869 adopted an EXTREMITY high
tariff. 1t is to-day the most rigidly
protective country on the continent.
There has been plenty Of time for
system so aenefcient to produce
at last visible effect. Why is it,
then, that the average wages in Ger
many are but 1884, as against the
S5.16 of France and the 1855 of
England? We do not know exactly
how the breadth of the Atlantic
affects arguments about wages; but
On the other side Of it wages clearly
arrange themselves in graduated
scale, the highest being paid in
England, and those of other countries
quoted descending according to the
energy with which the protective
system is applied. Finally, we
learn from the Tribune's table that
wages in Chicago are 1854 for every
$l2 in New York. But the Tribune's
formula says that only protection
can account for such . difference.
Is there. then, some unknown custom
house between the Atlantic and
Lake Michigan where sufficient
duties are collected, in violation Of
the constitution, to cause this differ
ence, and is it possible that q New