Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1888-09-21

earnings Of the laborer In 1910 were sixtv-sir
cents, and in 1884 81. His wages increased
decreased 90 per cent.
In that Same establishment in ls4S the
wages of weavers were sixty cents q
day. and each man turned out ll3 yards OF
cloth. In 1884 the wages had risen TO 81 .06,
and each weaver turned out 213 yards Of
cloth
In the second house, also in Massachusetts,,
manufacturing printed cloths, each laborer in
1850 produced az yards; in 1884 he produced
luz yards, an increase of 142 per cent. His
earnings were 65 cents q day in 1850 and
u. O5 in 1884. The increase in wages was 81
per cent. Tho decrease in the labor cost Of
the article was 80 per cent.
The third house, manufacturing sheeting
In Massachusstts. showed that each laborer
In 1859 produced Al yards. and in 1856 70
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 AZ. yards and in 1883 1903
yards. The increase in productive capacity
was l42 per cent. The increase in wages was
o6.7 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 laoorer 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,
tho productive efficiency continued 10 in
crease, the multiplication of production by
the power OF machinery continued to in
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
or tho duties will lave by letting in ths 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
osltlon 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 a higher rate OF wages
means lower cost Of product, and the highest
rate of wages means lowest cost of product.
MIR. Wright, Chief of the Labor Bureau,
Instituted most painstaking examination
into the rates of labor in England and
Massachusetts a few years ago, and showed
tho rates OF labor higher in this country
than in England; u per cent. higher in
manufacture OF woolens, rs per cent. in
iron and steel; l2S per cent. i'll boots and
shoes. That would seem to indicate, accord
ing to the philosophy which has been taught
In this country by protectionists for many
years. that We arc on the road to ruin be-
<,t.- rat 1t l-I< - -
England and other countries. But the re-
verse OF that proposition il true; and the
fact that the rate Of wages is higher here
than In England shows that England is dis
tanced in tho great industrial contest into
which she has entered.
Now let me give you an instance hero In
boots and shoes. IL we pay so 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 LIS 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 usI
and the fact that the rate of wages 10 so
much higher here than in England shows
that she is far behind in the race
Let u see. Here Is . gentleman writing
In Hdrpe-'s Mdgasfns in 1855, = very able
rticls entitled "A Pair OF Shoes.h He
takes the history Of the hide from the COW,
and follows it through ali its mutations into
he dnsst products OF manufacture. This is
aot an article on wages. but It contains .
paragraph on wages.
Mr.. Cox-By whom 10 the article writtsni
Mr.. Nills-Nr. Howard Newhan il the
writer. He says:
'.Americsn ladies' shoss wholssal.ng at $50
Per pair. cost for labor q making twenty five
ecnta English ladies' shoes whossaling ct $i5c
Per PAR, cost for labor OF making thirty -four
@nts American meas shoes wholesalihg at
geo per pair. cost for lAbor Of making thirty
three cents. English nen's shoes wholesalng at
" " Per pair. cost for labor Of making hfty
enta In The report Of The Massachusetts, Bureau
sage In Massachusetts, Is given Is Izss per cent.
higher than In Great Britain. The general aver.
sge weekly wage IN Massachusetts, is given at
u 81 per week, and in Great Britain at Sos"
Now, what il the solution Of all thisi What
does it meant In Massachusetts, wages are
l2s.S per cent. higher than they are in Great
Britain, but the labor cost OF = pair OF ladies'
Dhoss in Massachusetts 10 less than the labor
cost Of like pair OF shoes in Great Britain.
The cost II Is cents In Massachusetts, against
"a cents In England. Tho labor cost of mems
shoes in Massachusetts, 10 50 cents per pair;
the labor cost OF mems shoes in England Is
70 cents. If our people are to 10 injured by
the importation Of English shoes into this
country the English shoe must BE- produced
1t . lower cost than the American shoe;
otherwise IL can not take the market.
1t y not the rate OF wages In England ani
America respectively, t5.08 against Gil .63,
that We have to consider. but it 10 the labor
cost of the pair Of shoes. Now, the man
holds the market who can sell his goods
cheapest, and the man can sell cheapest who
gets his goods 1t the lowest cost, and that is
the man in Massachusetts,. What, then,
does this difference in wages mean. sll.63
Per week IN Massachusetts, against S5oS ip
England 1t simply means increased pro-
ductivs efficiency; it means that the pro-
ductive efficiency of the American workman
engaged in this industry 10 greater than that
Of the British workman by 1883 per cent.
In order for the American to earn his
SHES week he makss Is pairs OF mems
shoes in . week; the Englishmap, to earn
his s5.oS Z week. makes 10 pairs of mems
shoes. In order for the American workman
70 earn bis I'll. 90 per week he makes 40 pairs
Of ladies' shoes; in order for the Englishman
to earn his IS. % per week he makes 10 pairs
of ladies' shoes. The tariff did not make the
American workingman's wages Gil. IS per
week. It was the numbsr Of shoes he made
that regulated his wages, and superior skill
make more shoes than the Englishman.
Here 10 the solution of the whole question.
and the principle il the same that have
been supporting all along. That principle is
that the higher rate Of wages means higher
productive power; it Ia increased pay for in
creased work; it is not the tariff; it 10 more
work; it Is more efficient work; 1t is better
work; it il cheaper work. 1t Is that that
holds the market; and it holds the boot and
shoe market OF this country against the i'm
portation OF q single pair OF shoes from
Great Britain, Notwithstanding the fact that
wages there are $3.50 Q week a. against
81. 63 in MASSACHUSETTS.
Swallowed bed Bug Poison.
CSt. Louis Republic, July ISL
An unusually sad death occurred in @.
ii. Semtuer's family at sl1 North Eley-
enth street Yesterday morning Last