Freeland tribune. (Freeland, Pa.) 1888-1921, 1892-09-29

Senator A1drich is another over cred
ulous protectionist statistician. When
he wished to annihilate Hon. John De
Witt Warmers list of 400 tariff trusts"
he sent out blanks to protected manu-
facturers, asking them to state whether
or not they were members of trusts Or
course In the face OF criminal statutes
and public opinion, the manufacturers
strenuously denied that they were in
trust-in many cases, where they were
dodging from one state to another, un-
der aliases to escape prosecution, or
where the courts had declared that they
had trust. But Aldrich paraded their
denials In The Congressional Record and
apparently believes these millionaire
monopolists incapable of coloring facts
AS the New York World puts it: MIR.
Peck's report was made, like the Nc
Kinley tariff law, by the manufacturers
by the people who expect to reap the
benefits They first prepared the bill,
and are now reporting on its effect In
the state Of New York. In aid OF this
pretty scheme Mr.. Peck refuses to make
public the letters on which he bases his
assertions"
Fourth-Mr. Peck's figures show net
increase Of production of $31 ,315, ,13O.
and of wages of $8,377 1926 in 1901 over
1890-$23. II to each of the 2S5 900 en-
ployees, or $48.96 to each employee in
the fifty-one trades showing increased
wages-there being 69,717 instances of
individual increases.
Fifth-Supposing that these statistics
are correct they show that from some
cause or causes-perhaps good crops or
1t may be increased prices for manufac-
tured goods-the value of manufactured
products has increased $31 ,000, 900, about
one-fifth of which has gone to labor
probably for work done-and four-fifths
of which rest snugly in the pockets of
protected manufacturers. That Mr..
Peck should jump to the conclusion that
this increase In earnings meant increased
rates of wages and that these were due
to tariff law, is unbecoming to him as
statistician and inconsistent with his
past records. In 1888, 1880 and 1890 he
attributed wage increases to labor or
ganizations, strikes and national pros
perity.
These statistics also contradict those
of the senate ommittee-obtained with
considerable care-which show that
wages have advanced somewhat in fif
teen unprotected industries, but have
fallen slightly in fifteen highly protected
industries.
In many Industries the statistics ap-
pear to be entirely inconsistent with
previous and with contemporaneous
statistics and to depend largely upon
the elasticity of the consciences of the
makers. Thus the average yearly wages
in the agricultural implements industry
for 1890 Is $654.80 in New York and
$419.10 In Massachusetts, difference
greater than usually exists between
wages in this and in European countries
and yet these two states have the same
tariff law. In the second industry men
toned (arms and ammunition) the aver
age yearly wages in 1890 were $5G1.45
in Massachusetts and $492.42 in New
York. The third (artifcial teeth) shows
yearly wages of $554.45 in Massachu-
sets and $192 in New York-but not
withstanding this tremendous difference
the high priced labor Of Massachusetts
oompetes with the pauper labor of New
York. But by 1891 wages in this in
dustry had increased to 1884. .45-that is
from about sixty-tive to eighty cents per
day. Analysis of other industries shows
the same glaring Inconsistencies and
demonstrates the entire worthlessness of
such statistics, except for Republican
campaign purposes.
But there are, as Mr.. ]. Schoenhof
has shown, important and significant
omissions in Peck's list Of protective In
dustries. Three of these are the highly
protected and exceeding important in
dustries Of cotton goods, hats, caps,
etc., and iron and steel products. In
these, both the number of employees
and their annual earnings had declined
heavily from 1870 to 1880. Here are the
census tables dn thousands):