Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1890-04-24
LETTERS TO FARMERS.
Female Labor IN Factories ana On
Farms.

had the tendency OF degrading uomFs-
tic life, and putting labor and hard
ships on those that are the least able
to bear them. First, / will compare
country in 1860, under II years of "a
revenue tariff, with that in 1880, under
20 years Of a protective tariff.
In 1860, sitter Il years of a revenue
tariff, this country employed in manu-
factories the f.liO wing hands, namely:
Males about ID years old. ,04U, $40
Females above II years old......... 210, S91
Now, / call the attention of my rea j.
ers to the most significant fact that in
the factory labor under revenue tar
iff no hauds-whe:her male or female,
according to the official statistics
were employed below the age of Is
years. Now let US turn to the wear
1880, after 20 years of blessed protec-
ton, which, it is claimed, made this
nation happy:
In 1880 there were employed in man
ufactorie>, males above ID years. =, 025 $50
Females above 10 years.. j31 ,6::,9
Children from 10 to d.. 1921
ln the first place. we find that pro-
lection has naturally doubled the
hands employed. but it has unfOrtu-
nateiy, nearly doubled the female la
Dor, viz, from go S97 in 1860 to 531 ,6S3
in 1880. If protection is such bless
ing and gives full work and good
wages to fathers of families and hus-
bands why should the female labor
double? Besides this, what a sham,
sw:ndle and disgrace is protective
tariff which has enlisted Isl ,921 chill
dren under the age of - years to work
in factories? Is it not as clear as sum
shine that this slaughter of the inuo-
cents of Isl 800 children in the facto-
ries is simply for the purpose of hay
ing cheap labor? If these Isl 800 chill
dren were not allowed to be employed
would not their places have to br TAX
en- by persons above the aye OF Is years,
who naturally would get higher wag-
es? Again, by employing 53l $50
women the factories are only employ
ing cheap labor. OF what earthly use
Is protection of so, 80 and even 100
per cent. on wollen goods, or 40, 80 and
even 30 per cent. on cotton goods if we
have to employ the same class of labor
which, when it is employed in Europe
we sheer down as pauper labor? Has
not this protective tariff proved a
curse by introducing the employment
of children at ali? We have 1t on sta
tistical record that no children below
Is years Old were employed i'll factories
before 1861, and anybody who chooses
to consult the census returns of lSSOcan
find that fact in the compendium, vol
ume 2, page $50.
And now as to the employment of
females. Let me show the contrast
between the farmers employment of
female labor ami the employment of
female labor by the pampered protect
i've industries.
The farmers in 1880 employed in the
United States and Territories
Male laborers. ................ ..1,Ol3,9 1888
Female labor. ....-....... 59f,olO
which is a title over y per cent. TIE
manufacturers employed
Males above 10 years old. ., ops 1874
Females above 10 years old......... 530,639
which is about u per cent, besides the
ISe, 800 children.
But this is not all. OF the agricul-
tural employment of the 594 80 fe-
males We find that the II cotton-pro-
ducing States, namely, Alabama, Ar
kansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Vir-
gina, employed 537 ,3l4 females, which,
as every A merican will understand, Is
colored labor by females who for the
last 250 years have been, as it were, to
the manor born, and who, after all
are mostly employed in pickiag co..
ton, which compares to the close Ia
Dor in the walled factories as roast beef
compares to oatmeal cakes. Anyhow,
we find that the farmers who live III
the West and Southwest and produce
our breadstuffs, cattle and dairy pro-
ducts only employed in 1880 81, 1877 fe
males as laborers on their farms. All
honor TO the farmer. He does not look
for cheap female labor. He does not
press children of O tender age into en-
ployment. He pays full and manly
ages, and treats his white help as his
equal. ] speak of course of those mil
lions of farmers employed in raising
breadstuGfs, dairy produce. etc. But
they are taxed by those of their fellow
citizens who employ weak women and
children of tender age, and who by the
grace of a protective tariff make them
pay so per cent. in average more on
nearly all manufactured articles they
use on their farms and in their house
holds.
The other day Senator Dawes made
a speech at the paper manufacturers
meeting. The worthy Senator is a
famous protectionist and took occasion
to depiore the inadequacy Of protec-
ton on wOrsted goods. Now, 1t is a
fla ct that in the wOrsted mills of the
United States there were employed in |
1850 the following hands:
Males above IL years. &c, 49, |
Females above 10 years. %, i13 |
Children less than IL years. ,S9J |
This is an edifying exhibit, is it not? |
when we find an industry that en-
ploys double as many women and chill |
dren as men. OF course, the reason is |
simple; cheap labor is sought for and |
got. Well, then. The Senator, rs [ |
said, deplorei the inadequacy of the |
tariff on worsted good and wants the |
duty raised. which in Other words |
means that the people in general, and |
the farmer in particular. who Use most |
Of the worsted goods. shall pay n high
er price for it. Now, my worthy
friends-I mean you, the taX-ridden |
farmers-what do you suppose is actu-
ally the duty on worsted goods under
the present tariff? Let me enlighten
u.
III 1856 l find by the government re-
turns that the duty on worsted goods,
either partially of worsted or wholly
made OF worsted, was 50 per cent.
and s. 10 per cent. Now, would any
body con veraant with the facts believe
that higher duty should actually be
demanded by a Senator of the United
States? You farmers, who have 81 en-
a shrinkage in the price of your wheat
within four years from Sl.10 in average
in Chicago to 6S cent per bushel at
present-aud it may be even So cents
before this year is out-are actually
asked To pay more than 81 per cent.