The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1892-07-27
7ORALDRICH.


Az N08tAy Att1t<A <s&~@& st%C@~ - -~>~S
NJ Aidrich then took up the analysis
of 4 comparative statement made by MT.
Daniel Glover, q New York importer.
which was quoted by Senator Vest 10
support Q; his declaration - that M the rscsns r. ~.
necnasarias OF life. Mr.. Aldrich contend
"a that the articles named by Mr. Glover
upon which increases are shown could
not s. classed among the necessities, but
rather belonged to the class OF Injuries.
The labor cost of prSductaon wss a.. 'ansa tariff
was considered. 1t Is OF course impossl-
BILE 20 determine the proper rates OF duty
10 be levied on any article by compari-
sen Of the single element OF wages or even
the relative earnings Of labor in different
1yun',,ss c1s1n - nssd a discpssion psSoDs'''A ~ Wv
II ID equally impossible TO adjust the
tariff rates levied TO equalize conditions
on the basic of the mathematical relation
which ths labor cost 1T one stage bears 10
the finished product, as, for instance. the
6esrs 20 the com mpleted fabric. The rule
that should apply in nxing the rates OF
protectiye duties Is that which should In
All cases equal the difference between the
cost Of prod duction and distribution under
y normal conditions of the article in qnes-
tion in our own and In that competing
country where the cost of production is
lowest. This was the rule which was ioi-
lowed In the preparation OF the act or
1890, and Of the Senate tariff bill OF 1888
which formed the basis of this measure
Protective duties levied In this manner
one eject; that Is, to protect. American
labor and to maintain the existing high
level of wages and earnings OF American
workmen. When such duties are re-
moved or reduced below the protective
point labor receives the full force OF the
while IL is not claimed that protective
tariff guaranteed any particular industry,
and why tarin rules cannot be based di-
rectly on difference in ascertained wages,
OF even In the relative earnings OF people
n co%psting countries 4 % Will ts,. ps sssn sii
feronce becomes Indirectly the basis upon
which all duties are levied, as tariff rates
Are axed BY the difference In the cost OF
uroduction between the competing coun.
tries: and the difference in the cost OK
production in the final analysis consists
Of difference in wages or earnings This
rule for fixing rates should only apply,
however, to articles In the production OF
which the United States has equal natural
advantages with other countries.
At no time In our history had the earn
inRs Of the American people been 80 great,
measured By their power 70 purchase the
were to-day. Measured by the same
standard they were vastly greater than
those Of any other people in the world.
Having anslyzsd some Of Mr.. Vests state
meats at length. Mr.. Aldrich asserted that
those statements failed Ia every respeGs
general use had been advanced In price as
3 resull OF the tariff Legislation of two
years AGO.. Mr.. Aldrich asserted that the
rscent invests cation Of the finance COM
mittee showed that In general occupations
wsge in the United States were "a per
submitted tables showing the relative
wagss' In cotton and worsted mills in the
two countries, with American wages in
1nany casas more than 100 per cent. higher.
The tables In reference to wages In the
production OF tin plate showed differ
Once OF 152 per cent. In favor OF the
United States a. compared with Wales.
Similar statistics were abundant.
wares An sfhe United States showed a
ntill QreatersTexcess when compared with
fhose Of Continental Europe. This diff
ference was undoubtedly greater In GER
tain occupations and localities than
others. Tariff reformers, as rule, ad-
mitted that American earnings were
Rroatar than any others, but assumed
that the higher rate OF wages insured
lower cost Of production on account or the
greater skill and efficiency Of American
workmen. Tbs, they asserted, asserted .un,r,;s was the
law that higher wages result in low cost
Of production.
1here were many instances in which
the producers Of the United States,
through the superior energy, skill and
genius of our mechanics and inventors,
or by the greater or more effective use OF
machinery, had reduced the cost Of pro-
duction to point lower than that In
competing countries In these cases i'm
port duties were of course imperative.
Tne number Of cases In which this was
true was constantly increasing. II the
Act Of 1890 was allowed to remain upon
the statute books until the full benefit of
its provisions could be realized, the list
Of articles in which we could successfully
compete was certainly to be greatly en-
larged. .
ssvsr before the presenst, time time had there &
hostile and inimical relations between
employer aud employe Mr. Aldrich pre-
osnted statistics of strikes in each year
from 1880 to 1890 inclusive In the United
States. These strikes varied from
cfo in 1880 to TBS in 1890; whereas
tariff rsformers, s,l64 strikes had
Z occurred In 1890. As to the prostration Of
agricultural interests. about which Mr.
Vest had said so much, Mr.. Aldrich as
serted that Mr.. Vests statement was dia-
mstrscally opposed to the actual facts Of
the case The farmer to-day, with an
equal number of bushels of grain or
pounds CT meat, could buy more aud bet
ter clothing, machinery or supplies than
ever before.
By the operations of the act Of 1890 far
msrs were given larger and more proflta-
BILE markets, both at home and abroad
AS an instance Of this, the exports to
Cuba--largely OF agricultural products
were increased during the ten months
ending June 30. 1892, as compared with
the corresponding ten months of the pre-
vious fiscal year, q, zoe. 900, or an increase
of Ns per cont
It was quite natural for all classes of
people TO believe that their condition
ought TO be aud might be improved, but
the assurance displayed in this chamber
IN the attempts to convince the farmer.
in the face OF the facts which he had re-
cited, that he was suffering untold evils
- the result of tariff legislation, had no
parallel.
As q foreign commerce Mr.. Aldrich
submitted tables which he said furnished
convincing evidence 20 disprove state
nents 30 freely made as TO the restrictive
nHarfn NJ tariff leoisl.tiou IN fo..t.,,