Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1892-10-05
CREDULOUS MR.. PECK
RIDICULOUS REPORT OF THE NEW
YORK LABOR COMMISSIONER.

sions and Grave Misconceptions.
What is this report of Labor Commits
sioner Charles f. Peck, of New York,
which President Harrison is quoting and
about which the Republicans are making
as much fuss as if it were the only really
valuable piece of campaign material that
they have got hold of this year! l.
What did Mr.. Peck attempt to show?
2. What did he think would show this?
8. How dill lie obtain the required in
formation? 4. What figures or facts .id
he obtain? 8. What do and do not these
figures prove?
First-Mr. Peck attempted to show
1.-THE effect of the tariff on labor and
wages" in order that voters might know
whether protective tariff" or ''tariff
for revenue only" is to be preferred.
Second-He evidently assumed and
thought that increased production and
earnings would show that the effects of
the high protective tariff act of 1890 were
beneficial to labor This was a violent
assumption on the part of Mr.. Peck and
is not creditable to him as a statistician,
logician or a Democrat. There might
be a dozen different causes for either
high or low production or earnings, the
most important of which might have no
connection directly or indirectly with
tariffs. For example, bountiful rains
and favorable weather in 1891 produced
good crops here when there was search
ty abroad. This caused unusual returns
for our crops and a boom in business in
no way due to any tariff act. The low
price of cotton made cotton mills pros
porous and made more hours day and
night work for spinners, weavers, etc.
Such causes as these may, and probably
do, account for most of the increased
production and earnings-which are by
no means synonymous with increased
wages and may mean more work for
more pay, the rate of wages being the
same or even lower, but Mr.. Peck sees
nothing except the tariff in all this. He
had a 'preconceiyed theory" which
makes the tariff responsible for prosper
ity or depression in business, and though
he pretends to be Democrat yet it Is
evident that he is neither a Democrat
nor does he understand Democratic doc
trine on the tariff question.
Democrats do not claim, as his report
assumes, that protection" will entirely
prevent increased production and earn
ings or that it will raise or lower NOM
inal wages. They simply claim that it
has little or nothing to do with high or
low wages, but that it does have much
to do with the amount of goods that can
be purchased with wages. But on this
most important phase of the subject Mr.
Peck is silent, except that he mentions
the omission in a manner that would in
dicate that it is comparatively unim
portant. That his 'preconceived the
ories" were in favor of protection IS
obvious from his statement in the New
York Tribune of Sept. 3, in which he
says: Il see that protection is good
thing for the manufacturers, and Iknow
also that the manufacturers would not
pay higher prices for their labor if it
were not for the unions. BY means Of
protection labor is able to enforce the
demands that it makes upon the manu-
facturers." OF course there is but little
connection, except in the minds of Mr.
Peck and other protectionists, between a
duty on manufactured goods and wages
This report that has "knocked the Chi.
cago platform silly" and 'raised the
hopes of the Republicans 10 per cent"
is then but the half fedged and illogical
conception of a protectionist. In the
name of Democracy it seeks to prove or
disprove the Republican claim thatpros.
perity is impossible without ''protec-
tion," whereas Democrats do not deny
that in country like this-the biggest
free trade country in the world when
territory is considered - considerable
prosperity may accompany even Nc
Kinley protection.
Third-Notice now how Mr.. Peck
went to work to obtain the data which
was to settle forever this tariff discus
sion. "Some 5000 blanks" he says
"were addressed and mailed 10 as
many separate establishments through
out the state" A circular letter in
formed the manufacturers that "the in
formation received would be used only
in a general way, so that the business of
any individual firm would not be recog-
nized." Thus guaranteed against de-
lection, 5000 of these protected manu-
facturers and jealous Republicans did
their duty to their country and them
selves by fixing up figures which should
leave no doubt as to the effects of Nc
Kinleyism and sent them to Mr.. Peck,
the gentleman who possesses a medal
for his ability to display figures, and
who deserves one for his methods Of col
lecting them.
But what Of the 1000 who did not re-
ply to Peck's circular, "How do you do,
benefciaries of Mckinley" Why did
they not reply? Could they not make
figures expressive of their gratitude to
Mckinley, or did they not have faith in
Peck and believe that he would keep his
promise to shield them from exposure
by withholding all names from the pub
lie? 1t would be interesting to learn
why they did not reply and what their
replies would have been. But perhaps
they would have spoiled the report for
Republican purposes, in which case this
campaign would have been tame and
uninteresting.
Credulous Mr. Peck! Be has the same
implicit con lence in the unverifed fig
ures of thess interested manufacturers
that The American Economist had when
it obtained, by the same methods, its
list of twenty-eight Mckinley wage adj
vances. But unfortunately for it The
Economist gave names and locations, so
that an investigation was possible. The
Reform club at once got the facts in
each case and proved that there had
haa,, Co.. ,,,,,.o -, ,.o -adrcfiOns in tbasa