Springfield daily republic. [volume] (Springfield, O. [Ohio]) 1887-1888, 1888-07-14
TARIFF DISCUSSION.
Continued From Second Page.

Continued From Second Page,
you will frd his statement to be that q
person can live In England 40 per cent
cheaper than In this country. Hence ht
thinks the laboring men of England could
afford TO work In England ut 60 cents pei
day and live just as well as In this country
ut 81 90 per day.
His statement regarding the Engiist
laborer looks very we'll from free trade
stand point. 1t was intended 70 eaten tht
eye and vote of the unthinking, and was
well calculated to do so, but when you dis
sect and analyze it, Its absurdity Is at once
seen.
DO not think have misQuoted his fig
ures. IL you do, then / beg you to get his
address and read 1t for yourselves: put bis
figures together, then take the average, and
you will have the result have stated. II
1t be true that the English laborer receives
about as high wages in England as In this
country, why do so many thousands find
their way TO this country annually?
Why has the population of Ireland de-
creased from 5000, 600. in 1s46, the veal
free trade went into effect, to 5000. 900 In
1850 decrease of nearly one-half-if II
were not to better their condition? II the
question Of wages had not got into politics
we should haAe no trouble iu deciding why
the English, the Irish and the Germans
come TO America.
find in the address of my friend that I'm
England, in 1850, the average wages paid
fifteen employments was S7.07 per week.
Let us see how this compares with the
labor statistics of Ohio for the year 1886.
find in the report table giving the
amount of wages paid to 81 different trades,
the average wages OF which are S11 So per
week. Remember these figures are not
mine. but are from the official report Of the
bureau of labor statistics of Ohio. Does
not s11.5s wages per week In Ohio COM
pare very favorably with S7.07 per week
in England?
Regarding the wages received by the
cotton factory operatives OF England, let
me say that we have no reliable statistics
) whatever. Everyone who has made the
patteinpt to get them has failed. For the past
thirty years 1t has been the policy of the
English manufacturers not to give TO the
public the rates of wages paid.
Mr.. G. K Porter. one OF England's best
known statisticians, says that mo one,
unless he shall have made the attempt to
obtain information as 10 the rate of wages,
can be aware of the difficulties opposed to
his success 1t is useless, therefore to al.
tempt q comparison between the wages paid
cotton factory operatives in the United
States and England.
The increase In the wages Of the opera
tiyes In our own factories was % per cent
between 1860 and 1881, and the wages are
higher now than i'm 1881.
Edward Atkinson, free trader of Bos-
ton. says "That the Bureau of Statistics
at Washington show that the annual wages
OF mechanics In this country advanced
from S46S In 1860 to S720 In 1886.
MIR. IL. j. Pettifer. secretary Of the Lon
don (Englsnd) Workingman's Association,
writes to the Fair Tndde, Newspaper
published In that city, under date of Sept
Z. 1887, after his return from visit to the
United States, as follows:
have returned from my third visit II
had been there on my own cost and re-
sponsibility, must confess l should have
stayed, for 1t seems to me we have long
hight before we can attain such alterations
In our fiscal policy as will place our work
Ing people in the advantageous position OF
their fellow t0ilers across the Atlantic.
There are only two courses left for the
working people Of Great Britain. One is
to get protection at home and the other is
to go to some English-speaking country
where they have protection"
Ii seems to me useless to discuss further
the price of labor and cost of living In this
country as compared with England, and |
will only refer to one other statement on
the labor question made by my friend
Thomas. He says that some shlp-builders
In England are today employing Ameri-
can labor at American prices, Now
challenge the correctness OF this statement.
i know that q few years since during
strike in England some American workmen
went there to work at ship-building, and II
Is also fact that our government had TO
assist them TO return to this country. They
were unable to earn sufficient wages to pay
their expenses home.
find numerous errors and mistakes in
the address Of MIR. Thomas, which, with
your permission. win correct.
MISTAKE NO. 1.
The statement is made that one of the |
results of free trade In England, beginning |
In 1916, is the decrease in the number of |
paupers; that in 1850 she had 202, 600, and |
that In 1888 they had decreased TO los, 900. |
Where the above statistics were found |
am unable to say, but there is q most glar- |
ing error In the statement.
In 1851 she had $50, s93 paupers instead |
Of 202. 900, and the number kept on In |
creasing up to 1871, when she had |, ,0Sl,- |
800. and today she has nearly or quite one |
million.
These are the official figures of the En-
glish census report. 1t would seem that |
free trade was q very efficient factor in |
making paupers-that instead of reducing |
the number, it had increased 1t more than |
20G. 900 In twenty years.
In the United States, with double the |
population of England, we had In 1880 but |
sS.665. This shows that England. with |
only half the population of the United /
States, had ten times as many paupers.
Has free trade had any hand in making
them? / would not mention these
facts, but as the number of pau
pers was introduced to show the
benefits of free trade. have thought it
just as well that few things be corrected. |
MISTAKE NO. 2.
We have the statement that in 1851 Eng
land had only 1890 school houses; In 1882
they have increased to 81, 800.
Let us see how this compares with the
United States.
In 1870 we had 141,629 school houses,
and In 1855 we had 225, $50.
This shows that in 81 years, free trade
England built 19, 600 school houses, while |
the United States, from 1870 to 1SS0-10
years-built 81, 251, or more than four
times as many in 10 years as England built
In 81 years.
Was it free trade that kept England
back, or was it protection that forced our
schools ahead?
MISTAKE NO. s.
i find another statement In the address
of my friend that needs correcting.
He says that In the IA years from 1S46 10
1860. under the low tariff of lS46, our man
ufacturies increased 81 per cent.
Thus far, he is correct, but he goes on to
say that In the twenty years. from 1860 to.
$780, or manufactures, under high tariff.
only increased % per cent. Here Is most
remarkable error.
In 1860 our manufactures amounted to
a. eor agf ey6