Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1888-05-04

earnings Of the laborer in 1910 were sixtv- six
cents, and in 1854 81. His wages increased
so Der cent. The labor cost Of the product
decreased 90 per cent.
In that Same establishment in 1913 the
wages Of weavers were sixty-five cents a
day, and each man turned out lis yards OF
cloth. In 1884 the wages had risen TO Sl.06,
and each weaver turned out 213 yards of
cloth
In the second house, also in Massachusetts,
manufacturing printed cloths, each laborer i'll
1880 produced ~ yards; in 1884 he produced
lO2 yards, an increase of l42 per cent. His
earnings were IS cents q day in 1850 and
81 Us In 1884. The increase in wcges was 81
per cent. The decrease in the labor cost Of
the article was SO per cent.
The third house, manufacturing sheeting
In Massachusetts. showed that each laborer
in 1852 produced Al yards. and in 1886 20
yards Of cloth His productive efficiency in
creased n per cent. His wages increased 40
per cent. The labor cost OF the cloth de-
creased is per cent.
In the fourth house, in New Hampshire,
manufacturing print cloth, each laborer in
1852 produced 42.5 yards and in 1856 1903
yards. The increase in productive capacity
was l42 per cent. The increase in wages was
81. Z per cent. and the labor cost per yard
decreased IS per cent.
Without going all through these figures,
the facts az to each one of these houses show
in every instance that the productive eff
cheney Of the laporer had increased, and that
corresponding with that the wages had in
creased and the cost of the product had de-
creased
Now, then, the tariff had nothing to do
with any of these results. During this time
We had high tariffs and low tariffs, but
whether high tariff or low tariff, or no tariff,
the productive efficiency continued to in
crease, the multiplication Of production by
Of -.
crease, and wages rose with it, and the cost
OF the product sunk. So that the tariff con-
ferred no benefit on the laborer; none what
ever.
But now let us see what effect q reduction
OF the duties will have by letting in the goods
of England and other foreign countries into
our markets to compete with our people and
TO endanger the laborers of our country, as
1t Is charged it will do. say the same prop
osltion for which | have been contending is
demonstrated again when We compare the
Iaborer Of this country with the iaborer OF
England. We produce cheaper than in Eng
land because = high rate of wages means low
cost OF product, and higher rate Of wages
means lower cost OF product, and the highest
rate OF wages means lowest cost OF proauct.
MIR. Wright, Chief of the Labor Bureau,
instituted most painstaking examination
into the rates of labor in England and
Massachusetts, few years ago, and showed
the rates of labor higher in this country
than in England; II per cent. higher in
cotton manufacture; 25 per cent in the
manufacture Of woolens, ~ per cent. in
iron and steel; 12S per cent. in boots and
shoes. That would seem to indicate, accord
ing to the philosophy which has been taught
LII this country by protectionists for many
years, that We are on the road to ruin be-
cause our rate of labor is higher than in
England and other countries. But the re-
verse of that proposition il true; and tho
fact that the rate Of wages is higher hero
than in England shows that England is dis
tanced in the great industrial contest into
which she has entered.
Now lot me give you an instance hero In
boots and shoes. If we pay 30 much higher
wages in producing boots and shoes, II the
proposition we hear on the other side be
true, we can not enter into any contest with
Great Britain when we pay lbs per cent.
higher wages than she does. Yet We I'M
port no boots and shoes at 80 per cent. duty
from England. We make the cheapest boots
and shoes and the finest made in the world.
In that England can not contest with US;
and the fact that tho rate Of wages IL SO
much higher hare than in England shows
that she 10 far behind in the race.
Let ~ see. Here II 4 gentleman writing
In Haypey's Adgasins in 1885, = very able
article entitled "a Pair OF Shoes.h He
takes the history Of the hide from the COW,
the 6nest products Of manufacture. This is
not An article on wages, but 1t contains .
paragraph on wages.
Mr.. Cox-By whom 10 the article writtsni
Mr.. Mills-Mr. Howard Nswhan 10 the
writer. He says:
pev pair, cost for labor o. making twenty five
ocntA English ladies' shoes whossalng ~ 81 SO
per pair. cost for labor OF making thirty four
cents- American mems Shoes wholesal,ng ct
% Ia baar NJ Y iptrt htrfy
three cents. English mems shoes whossaIng at
y " par pair. cost for labor Of making fifty
cents ln ne report Of The Massachusetts, Bureau
Of Statistics Tor 1854, tho general average weekly
wage In Massachusetts, Is given ~ 1883 per cent.
higher than In Great Britain. The general aver.
sge weekly wage IN Massachusetts is given At
~: % per week, and in Great Britain at sos"
Now, what 10 the solution of all thisi What
does IL meant In Massachusetts, wages are
1888 per cent. higher than they are in Great
Britain, but the labor cost OF pair of ladies'
shoes in Massachusetts, il less than the labor
cost OF like pair Of shoes In Great Britain.
The cost II 25 cents In Massachusetts, against
b cents In England. The labor cost of mems
shoes in Massachusetts, il So cents per pair;
the labor cost OF mems shoes In England In
10 cents. II our people are to 10 injured by
the importation Of English shoes into this
country the English shos must be produced
81 . lower cost than the American shoe;
otherw 1t can not take the market.
IL u not the rate Of wages in England and
America respectively, $5.0S against $ll.63,
thnt We have to consider. but it il the labor
cost OF the pair Of shoes. Now, the man
holds the market who can sell his goods
cheapest, and tho man can sell cheapest who
gets his goods at the lowest cost, and that is
the nan in Massachusetts. What, then,
dos this difference in wages mean, Sll Is
Per week In Massachusetts, against S. Us in
Englandl 1t simply means increased pro-
ductivs efficiency; it means that the pro-
ductive efficiency Of the American workman
engaged In this industry IL greater than that
Of the British workman by 1883 per cent.
IN order for the American to earn his
shoes in week; the Englishman, to earn
his $5.O8 Q week. makes 10 pairs of mems
shoes. In order for the American workman
to earn his I'll. 63 per week he makes 40 pairs
OF ladies' shoes; in order for the Euglishman
to earn his IS. 0S per week he makes 10 pairs
Of ladies' shoes. The ts1lff did not make the
American workingmanJ wages s1l.6S per
wok. 1t was the number of shoes he made
that regulated his wages, and superior skill
In using machinery gave him the capacity to
make moro shoes than ths Englishman.
Here 10 tho solution of the whole question,
and the principle 10 the same that have
been supporting all along. That principle is
that the higher rate Of wages means higher
productive power; it is increased pay for in
creased work; it is not the tariff; it is more
work; it 10 more efficient work: it is better
work; it 10 cheaper work. 1t is that that
holds tho market; and it holds the boot and
shoe market of this country against the i'm
portation OF single pair OF shoes from
Great Britain, Notwithstanding tho fact that
wages there are $3.50 week ~ against
"a. 63 in Massachusetts,.
Swallowed Bed Bug Poison.
(st. Louis Republic July 38l
An unusually sad death occurred in G.