Clinch Valley news. [volume] (Jeffersonville, Va.) 18??-2019, 1892-11-04
MCKINLEY WAGES
BREAK DOWN.

HISTORY OF THE SMALL LIST OF BOGUS
PLIES TWO PARTIES WITH cAMPA1aN
MATERIAL - BRIEF FACTS IN RE-
GARD TO EACH CASE.
The Hon. John Dewitt Warner, OF
he New York Reform Club, has com.
pletcd his investigation of the twenty
eight cases where, according to the
American Economist and other high
Tariff authorities, wages have been adj.
vanced in protected industries since
October, 1890. Trustworthy examiners
we're sent to each place to get the facts.
Their reports were of such nature that
HE Reform Club has published them as
, number of Tariff Reform, and the New
York Weekly World gave them a,full page.
will be remembered that the Re-
'orm Club had prepared and published
il the World and,in Tariff Reform list
Of nearly 500 wage reductions aud lock-
puts in protected industries since the
Mckinley act took effect. The protec-
.ionists who had promised higher wages
with the Mckinley bill and had been
Ihouting higher wages ever since, began
10 get uneasy because they could not
tell anxious inquirers exactly where
wage advances had occurred. They be-
gan TO search, feeling confident that
wages must have advanced in many of
the thousands of protected mills in this
country. They sent out circulars to
manufacturers asking them to report the
per cent. that wages had been advanced
In their mills since October, 1890. In
this way and in other ways they got
together what purported to be list of
wage advances. Apparently it did not
occur to the American Economist editor
for if it did he was SO anxious to publish
the list that he did not consider the
consequence of an exposure) that the man.
ufacturers might misstate facts, perhaps
to get free advertising, or, it may be, to
attract laborcrs TO their mills. The
twenty-three cases of "wage advances"
were published with flourish in the
American Economist. Republican papers
were not slow in copying the list. At
last Mckinley had been indicated aud
the "free trade liars" silenced. But the
one great fault with the list was that it
was short; indeed it was its brevity that
betrayed it in more ways than one. 1t
great promises, but it offered induce
ments to investigation which n more
formidable list would have precluded.
II the protectionists were attempting
game of bluff they should have made u
list of several hundred advances-so
many that it would be very big and
very expensive piece of work to make
inquiry in regard to all. But twenty
three cases were just enough to challenge
investigation. If few of them could
be shown to be incorrect, the already
small list would be diminished so that
even Republican editors would be
ashamed to publish it. It was not ex-
pected by Mr.. Warner, when he began
the investigation, that the whole list was
fraud and that he would, in the MAI
jority of cases, get wage reductions fo1
his already long list. The following are
the brie(est possible summaries of the
list, the quotations being from the
American Economists list of examples
of wages advanced under the Mckinley
tariff, showing increased per cent:
81. Haskell &c Baker Car Company,
Michigan City, Ind, 10 per cent"
Wages were reduced from 12l to
25 cents per day in 1889, and restored
12s cents in May, 1890. No change
since the Mckinley act took effect.
"2. Wooster e Stoddard, Walden,
N. Y, 5 per cent"
Strike in May, 1892, caused read.
justment of wages by which some got
more and Others less-total effect not
certain.
"3. Camden Wooden Company, Cam.
den, Me-, 10 per cent"
Four looms got raise because they
changed to heavier work; weavers earn
ings were not increased.
80. Rider Engine Company, Walden,
N. Y, 8 per cent"
No advances in ten years, but leduc-
tions of 10 and 12i per cent. since 1884.
SIS. Hawthorne Mills Company, Glenn
vile, Conn.,, Is per cent"
One man advanced from S1.15 to
S1.25 in July, 1892, and nearly ali OF
the 200 employees reduced from 10 to 81
per cent. since 1890.
sc. Alfred Dodge, Dolgeville, N. Y,
20 per cent"
Alfred Dodge has for years had sys-
tenn of encouraging employees to work
for little and TO expect more, by advanc-
ing the wages of twenty or twenty-five
CT his more Industrious workmen shil-
ling ut the end of theyear. In Febru-
airy, 1891, forty or fifty received this
advance but in February, 1892, no ad-
vance whatever occurred and many EN-.
ployes were disappointed. Numerous
reductions each year fully offset these
punched and widely heralded advances.
"7. Lake Superior Lumber Company,
Sault st. Marie, Mich, Is per cent"
No advance at all was made in this
planning mill; report was purely for
political reasons.
$50. j. G. Bass, Roxboro, N. c., 25
per cent"
The two or three employees of this grist
and saw'mill never got less wages than
now. The report furnished amusement
for neighbors.
80. II. L. Chapman, White Pigeon,