The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1888-08-30


workers of that state, what then is the
inference-that the wage workers
among 50 .O00, 900 of people have saved
the one sum, while the wage workers
among two millions of people have
saved the other; or that nineteen wage
workers in England have saved $3.50,
while one wage worker In Massachu-
sets has saved $1,000; or that one
wage worker in Massachusetts has
saved as much as twelve wage workers
in England.
But 1 anticipate the filing from the
democratic editors that these startling
statistics are in Massachusetts, and
that she has always been especially
favored in the accumulation of wealth
by the protective tariff and has grown
rich at the expense of other states OF
the union.
Let them then turn to New York
whose electoral vote transferred the
national administration to the demo-
cratic party. New York has to-day
about six millions of people or perhaps
somewhat less than one-Sixth of the
population of the United Kingdom.
Their savings banks contained at the
beginning of this year five hundred
and five millions dollars; within a
small fraction or if the exchange be
correctly made, the full equivalent of
all the deposits in the savings and
postal banks of the whole United
Kingdom. If the United Kingdom had
the same proportional amount of de-
posits in her savings and postal banks
as New York, the sum total would eX-
coed three thousand millions of dollars
(S3, 900, COZ, O00l and would almost offset
her gigantic national debt. Or if you
please, take another and another state
which helped to give the country a
1aTs0 OaPafio aHniniCtraf -inn
Connecticut, with only little over
six hundred thousand people at the
last census, has one hundred and two
millions of dollars (S102 GOO, 0OO) depos-
tied in her savings banks. Or, if you
choose, without further considering in
diYidual states, let us group New York
with the six New England states, and
you will find that the aggregate sum in
| the savings banks of the seven states
to-day is 81 ,1O0, 10000 The amount
in these respective states belonging to
wage workers, IN every state except
Connecticut, is reckOned at rs per cent.
Connecticut estimates IS, while in New
York the estimate exceeds so per cent.
But to make the statement abundantly
| safe, take IS per cent for the whole,
and you have $715, 000, 600 in the saw
ings banks of the seven states credited
to wage workers. To state the fact in
l
population of IL ,O00, 900 in which the
present savings of the wage workers
are four times as great as the savings
| of the wage workers among the SO 900, :
600 people of Great Britain and Ire
land.
At this point the democratic advo-
cate of free trade answers that these
| great gains to the wage workers came
from their industry and thrift and were
not in the least helped by protective
tariff. Let us see. For twenty years
tive tariff in 1861, with the
exception of a short period
of between three and four
years in 1926 the country was I'M
der low revenue tariff, precisely of
the kind now recommended by Presi-
dent Cleveland and approved by the
democratic tbe ep party of That congress SaTod
the savings banks of New York
and New England had to-
tai deposits of one hundred and forty
nine millions of dollars (S149, 200, 00O)
Allowing the wage workers of that day
to have the same proportion OF the to-
tai deposits as they now have, their
share would be ninty seven million
dollars, 1897 ,000, 900, We are now in
the twenty-eighth year of a protective
4 OhSo
and made more effective from year to
year as industrial experience enabled
congress from time to time to
correct and adjust its work
ingS. How then stands the
matter at the end of twenty-eight
years of protection? The wage work
ers of New York and New England
have $715, 000, 600 to their credit, OF
nearly eight times the amount gained
under twenty eight years of free
trade in the same states. The pOpula-
ton of the seven states at the close of
the long era of free trade was 1880
900, and their population in this TWEEN
ty-eighth year of protection is presumed
to be IL 10000 The wage workers
of these states, toiling under revenue
tariff such as is recommended by the
president, had earned surplus
amounting to $13 so for each person Of
the entire population, while the wage
worker for the latter period under a
protective tariff, have earned $65 per
head for the total population, or, in
other words, the average wage worker.
under protective tariff in the United
States has been enabled to save five
times as much as the average wage
| worker unde mere revenue tariff
But the democratic advocate of free
trade thinks he can escape from the
crushing force of these figures by his
favorite cry that these earnings of the
| laboring man in New York and New
England have been at the expense of
the agricultural states in the west. l
| first answer that manufactures are so
rapidly spreading that there are no
! longer agricultural states in the sense
in which that term was used genera
ton ago, under a protective tariff.
Manufactures are springing up every
where and already some states in the
west, notably Ohio, Indiana and Hi
nois, have an annual product from man
ufactures amounting high up into the
millions. But, secondly, / answer that
1 have no need to interpose the manu-
featuring interest in stating the pro-
gress and development of the west, for
in twenty years of protective tariff
wealth has increased in far greater
ratio in the agricultural states of the
| west than in the seven manufacturing
states which have been adduced in the
east. In 1851, for instance, the six
western states of Michigan. Wiscon-
SIN, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas and Ne
braska, had a population of two and a
half millions e, 500 ,0O0), and an aggre-
gate wealth by the census of 1850 of
eight hundred and seventy millions of
dollars (SS70, 900 ,O0O). To-day they
have population of perhaps eleven
mills million Of people ~ 200 ooOl1 the the
whole of New England. We cannot
either in the west or the east later
| than the census of 1880, but in the
twenty years between 1860 and 1850.
| these six western states had increased
their aggregate wealth from eight
| hundred and seventy millions $50, =
600, OO0) to six Thousand three hundred
and seventy five millions IS 1915 200, COO,
/ n fFa fnf FILL
New York and New England had
three times the population of these
western states in 1860, with an a0gre-
gate wealth of thirty-seven hundred
millions lS3, 700, 000, 00O.} To-day the
population Of those states is about the
same as the western states, while their
wealth in the twenty years between