Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-09-12
sUNDAY.....sEPTEMBER IL. 1886.
Unreliable Statistics.


II Is we'll for The Nation and its fol-
lowers on the tariff question that they
can commit their notions to writing, and
do not have to stand up before q crowd
of voters and stump.spesker to have
their arguments exposed in all their
native absurdity. That paper has pre-
pared a synopsis Of the report of Colo
mel CARROLL d. WRIGHT, chief of
the Massachusetts Buresu Of Statistics
Of Labor, during the period from 1880
to 1888. We all admit the truth Of
Colonel WRIGHT's statement that be-
tween 1880 and 1860 the tariff was
generally low, and since 1860 it has
been high. We now copy from The
Nation as quoted in the Charlottesville
Chronicle
"Tbe investigation showed that ever
since 1880 there has been a steady up
ward tendency of both wages and
prices, the former advancing more
rapidly than the latter; that during the
1ow.tsrifr period, from 1880 TO 1860,
the average increase in wages in twenty
occupations was SOC per cent, while
the cost Of living advanced only l2.7
per cent, so that the workingman
gained almost 3s per cent. but that
during the high-tsriff period, since
1850. the average increase in wages in
twenty.four occupations has been only
244 per cent, and the advance Of prices
l4.5 per cent, so that the laborer's net
gain was not quite 10 per cent"
What do the above figures prove
They show beyond question that under
q protective tariff wages advanced by
"a per cent. above the point they had
reached under non-protective tariff.
II we were to say that boy grew
twice as much during the first fourteen
years Of his life as he as man and boy
grew during the next fourteen years, it
would be a good illustration Of the pro-
position of The Nation that wages
advanced by greater per cent. when
the advance was calculated upon the very
lowest wages that ever prevailed than
when the advance was calculated upon
the very highest wages that had pre-.
vailed up to the beginning Of the period
selected for illustrating The Nations
wonderful argument.
Let US restate the argument in prac-
teal terms. In 1880, mechanic re-
ceived one dollar day for his work.
Under low tariff his pay had increased
by 1850 to el.50, or so per cent. In
1860, 1--WE take The Nations date.) n
protective tariff was enacted. Under
this tariff his wages mad by 1886 sd-
vanced to sl.S6, or only "a per cent.
Therefore, protection does not protect
This "a per cent. advance from 1860
to 1886 was, as we have said, an adj
vance upon the boosted high price of
1850. The advance was in the case of
the mechanic used above as an illustra-
ton, "A per cent. upon sl.5O. But
this advance Of "a per cent. on $3.50
made . sum total of Sc per cent. adj
vance upon the price of 1880.
Once more Wages will probably ad-
vance very slowly hereafter if at all.
By 1896, under low tariff, they may
possibly fall "a per cent. Who can
tell? But would it be fair, or logical,
to attribute the decline to low duties?
We think not. We are arguing against
IN unfair proposition--one that would
be as unfair when employed against
low tariff as when employed against a
high tariff. Professor HUxLEy's lee
lures upon the unrelisbility Of the sta.
tistics Of theorists We commend to The
Nations consideration.
Finally, The Nation itself would adj
NIT without argument that wages can
not 60 up forever. There must be q
limit. To admit this is to admit that
It's argument under consideration is one
hat 80 fair and so ipteiligent n journal