Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-09-15
ADVERTISING RATES.
ua,r.~ru IN I.rSS.
WEDNESDAY. ..sEpTEM'R Is. 1886.
Those Unreliable Statistics.

Those Unreliable Statistics.
We commented the other day on IN
article from The Nation which had ap-
psared few days before in the Char
lottesvillc Chronicle. The State thinks
that in our comments We missed the
real question at issue. In order that
there shall be no further complaint on
that score, we quote here our neighbours
statement Of the object Of The Nations
article:
aIp the Nations article. which has
air a6y appeared in the STATE ana iater In
the Charlottesville Chronicle, ana when
the Dispafch disputes, !, Is clearly stated
that the statistics IL contaiDsare given not
10 prove thai the r.pit Improvement In the
condition OF labor w.ss due 10 low tarlH,
but 90 show that protection does not im.
prove the condition OF labor, as Is claimed
by Its advocates"
Now, how was this attempted to be
shown The paragraph We quoted
from The Nation will answer. 1t was
a. follows:
"The Investigation showed that ever since
1880 there has been steady upward ten
dency Of both wages and prices. the former
advancing more rapidly than the latter;
that during the low-tarif period, from 1880
TO 1890, the average Increase In wages In
twenty occupations was 80. y per cent; while
the cost OF living advanced only l2.7 per
cent, so that the workingman gained al
most SO per cent: but that during the high
tariff period, since 1860, the average IN
crease In wages in twenty-four occupations
has been only x4.4 per cent, and the ad-
yance OF prices las per cent, 50 that the la
borer'a net gain was not quite 10 per cent"
We tried, on the other hand, to de-
monstrate that according to The Ma.
iion's own figures, wages under pro-
tective tariff advanced by "a per cent.
above the boosted high wages of 1860,
or the highest wages paid under non-
protective tariff. We considered The
Nations article unfair in assuming that
wages would continue to rise forever,
instead Of admitting that there must be
q point above which they could not rise
under any sort Of tariff. Replying to
US, the State says:
aBut this is not the Protectionst's srgu-
ment. IL protection helps the wage Garner.
and low tarin Injuries him, rs the Protec-
ZIONIST claims, wages, instead OF rising
rapidly during low tarin period, would
have rapidly fallen. IL protection, more
over, were 10 bepeflt aabor as much as Its
supporters say IL does. why is " that. from
the standpoint OF labor, the relative pro-
portion OF wages and prices improved
more rapidly under n low tarin than
under high tarii2 DO not the sta
tissios the Motion quotes show that
wages do not depend upon high protective
tariff DO they not show what we nave
always Claimed, that the protected manu-
factufer never looks at the tarih schedule
when he is fixing The price of wages? When
wages rise they rise rot because OF the tariff,
hui without regard 10 the tariff. Strikes
and loekouis nave taught the operatives IN
protected manufactures that the protected
manufacturer cannot be safely trusted To
DIVIDE the dement's OF protection between
himself and his employees"
We have nothing TO do with the Pro-
tectionists' argument though one of
them assures US that but for the tariff
the steel-works could not be estab-
lished here In Richmond, but We stated
expressly what here follows:
"wages will probably advance very slow
~ hereafter. IL at ALL. BY 1896, under a
low tariff, they may possibly fall "a per
cent. Who can tells but would 1t be fair
or logical TO attribute the decline To low
drtiess We think not. We are arguing
against an unfair prOpOsltion-one that
would be as Unfair when employed against
low tariff as when employed against \
nigh tariff"
Again The State quotes as follows
cit is thus evident that wages were in.
creasing twice as fast In the low.tarif PEE
Rod rs under high tariff while prices ha &c
risen more rapidly under high than under
low tariff. 1he advertiser does not say
that The tariff was the sole cause OF these
Variations. but IL does assert that the facts
show. beyond dispute. that II the tartif is.
~ Mir. Bodwell says, The principal influence
affecting wages. then the nigh Tariff affects
them uniavoably.'
And our neighbor asks
"IIow can the Dispatch consistently diff
fer with the opinions tAus set forthP"
We reply that we differ with The
Nation, or with Mr.. CARROLL d.
WRIGHT that papers authority, be-
cause the facts do not warrant the
statement above quoted, nor the fol.
lowing:
y.The Investigation showed that ever ST. nee
! tao there has been steady upward ten
81 ncy OF both wages and prices, the forme,
that during the low.tarin period. from 1886
TO 1850. the average increase in wages IA
twenty occupations WAS see per cent
while The cUsi Of living advanced only IL I
Per cent. No that the workingInau gained
almost 50 per cent bat thai during thu
hixh-taiitf period, since 1850. the average
increase in wages In twenty-four occupa
tions has been only 2i.s per cant and tns
advance OF prices lS.e per cent, so that Tia,
cent
Who is the most reliable STATISTICAL
In this country SpoFFoRD, the Ii
brasian Of Congress. Every congress
nan. Republican or Democrat, Senate
q Representative, relies upon him I
authority. The following figures Al
his. They show the highest and los
eft prices Of the nscsssaries OF Ii
pamed therein during the years mel
|iaped:
Inisso. In 1880. In ISIS
Qentee. no. ioaizc. iiaise. sssiss
s sr1....'...''. ss.7sssc s4.s,ss5 so Sass;
Hams........ pailc. i0siSo. l0als
Ness- pork .sIlasis so .isasio. rs sisssl
Salt .....~..s ST. oas2. l2 66aSl.I5 eOas2
Sugar. raw case case. 4Ss7
DO those figures show such an 81
vance In prices of the necessaries ,
life between 1860 and 1884 as that th
laborer's net gain was not quite 10 pc
cent, although his wages had advance
"a per cent? The figures give th
highest and the lowest prices. Th
4 assfnss prices, therefore, are:
< 1890. 1881
ions............ ...--...... 4ss 4sss'
b Hafns.....-...=..-.....s... AK IL