Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1888-10-19
The TarITnnd wages.


diapers woekly.)
The chief popular argument at the pres
ent time for maintaining the high war
tariff is the pauper-labor argument
Formerly ii was The establishment of
domestic manufactures, or the young in
dusiry argument, and again it was the
home market. The present allegation IL
that TO diminish the average rate ot duties
from AZ to 40'or AZ per cent, which ia the
practical proposition now pending, Is to
bring the American laborer to the level OF
the pauper or poorly paid lnborer Of
Europe. That is to say, tariff tax in
creases the rate oil wages. Is this true .
According to the census Of 1880 the number
OF persons who are engaged in gainful
occupations was II 10000. OF this mum
ber the farmers are about 40 per cent, and
those Engaged in professions, in trade, and
in transportation, are about 35 per cent.
Here are rs per cent OF the lnboring people,
who from the nature OF their occupations,
cannot he protected by a tariff lax. Pro-
lection certainly does not raise their wages
On the contrary, by raising the price
every necessary of life which is imported
and which we do not produce, the purchas
ing power of their wages is diminished.
and thus protection reduces their wages by
just so much as the tariff increases the
prices on the articles they buy.
Is it the tariff which determines the rate
OF wages in the protected industries II
so, the rate of wages in such an industry
will be substantially the same wherever
the industry is pursued. But the labor
statistics show that so to 60, and in some
instances 100, per cent higher wages are
paid for labor in the same protected oc-
equations in different parts OF the country,
In 1880 wool-weavers were paid &C ne
cent. more in Delaware than in Michigan
and LOG per cent. more in Utah than IN
Illinois. Similar differences are shown in
the official statistics. But they would be
impossible if the tariff regulated the rate
of wages. Again, the greatest difference in
the rate OF wages paid in this country aud
in Europe is in the occupations which are
not protected and cannot be protected by a
tariff. Moreover, the rate of wages paid
in the unprotected industries here 10 larger
than that paid in the protected, and 1t ad-
vnnces more rapidly. From 1860 to 1890
the Increase OF weekly wages in Massa-
chusetts in ninety different Industries was
about 153 per cent. and the greatest ad-
vance was in the unprotected occupations
Yet the tariff rates in the came period ad-
vanced about "a per cent. This situation
again, would have been impossible il the
rate OF wages was determined by the tariff.
The same fact Is illustrated elsewhere
During the last forty years, in which Eng
land has heen what Is called free trade
country, the rates of wages have increased
from 20 to $50 per cent, while the honr.
OF labor have been reduced 20 per cent,
and what the laborer consumes las beer
diminished in price, To- day the rate o
wages In free-trade England are ~ pei
cent. higher than in protected Germany
and 65 per cent. higher than IN protected
France.
All this shows that however much high
er the rate Of wages may be in this coun-
try, and however desirable tariff may bt
tor certain purposes, il does not regnlat,
the rate OF wages. That Ia determined py
other considerations, such as demand
intelligence. efficiency, hours OF labor, and
| n Iy 81.
In England, for instance, the land il fun,
occupied but in this country there i,
farm land enough in the wet TO emplo,
ten times as many wage earners az iher,
are in the protected industries and Civ,
them better living than they are getting
III the actual amount OF wages paid in TIN
country be larger than in England, vet Mr.
Blaine said, when Secretary Of State, il
1881: "The inequalities IN the wages @
English and American operatives are NOR
than equalIzed by the greater efficiency u
the latter and their longer hours OF labor
The AmericanlabO rer does more and be-
ter work IN a shorter time. 1t is that an,
similar facts which determine the rate O
his wages, and not the tariff. But ii tn
tarif tax were laid, as is pretended, merel
to maintain the high rate of American
wages, The only just way 10 lay it wOul,
be to adjust the duty so as 10 accomplish
that result and no more, because To d
more would be TO compel all consumers /
pay higher price not to maintain wage
but as bounty to employers. The tariff
however, is not so adjusted. Not only is
very much heavier than is necessary I
maintain the rate OF wages, but it pays a
Immense premium to the employer, whicl
ls mere gift paid ont Of the earnings q
the people, by which individual fortune
are enormously increased, but for whic
the public gets no advantage whatever
Moreover, EMPLOYERS who insist 20 luslil,
that hIgh.trrlff shall protect America
abor against the pauper labor of Europ
nut no tariff al all upon the panper lapore
Of Europe, and when the American Lahore
asks for a share OF the increased prof
produced by high tariff lie is replaced b
ihe pauper laborer. 1t is because the pub
lie mind is fast coming TO see that it is nc
the tariff which regulates the rate of wage
and that the worst effects OF compeiuio
with pauper labor are not counteracted b
high tariff, that the prospect oil reai
enable reduction of the tariff is 80 encUur