The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1892-03-18
NEW ENGLAND IRON WORKS.


Have They Been Closing Up on Account
of the "Destruc:ive Effect OF Our Tar
in
One of the latest bulletins issued by
the census bureau gives the results OF
an exhaustive investigation into the
status of the New England iron indus
try by DIR. William NJ. Sweet, of Phila-
delphia. This report, while it'does not
present a uniformly gratifying array
of facts, will effectually set at rest the
walls of the ''reformers," who have
been claiming that the partial decad-
ence of this New England industry IS
due to the destructive influence OF the
tariff. 1t seems that while the number
of establishments has decreased, both
invested capital and value of products
have increased, as the following table
(which includes blast furnace. iron and
steel rolling mills, Bessemer, open
hearth and crucible steel works, and
FORCES and bloomaries) shows:
Iron and Stesl Works. 1850. 1890.
S0 Of s estaS5ifA%spti 4 aasS
Az. No. hands employed s,t9i $3.50
Total wages paid. ......... S,351,9ll .31S
Total cost OF materials. g5lS,5IO gSS50S 10
That such an increase in invested
capital should be accompanied by de-
crease in the number of establishments
would be quite uneXplainable were it not
fact that this decrease was only appar-
ent and not real, the discrepancy being
due to the different modes of collecting
the statistics for the two periods. I'm
$780," says DR.. Sweet, where = rolling
mill was operated in connection with q
steel plant the works were tabulated as
two establishments. In 1890, owing to
the growth of the manufacture of steel
and the consequent impossibility of
making any accurate division between
the iron and steel establishments, works
consisting of a rolling mill and a steel
plant have been considered as one es-
Enlistment" The statistics relating to
the number of workingmen employed
also require a few words in eXplana-
ton. The figures for 1880 include not
only the labor directly employed at the
New England furnaces (which should
De the real basis of comparisOn), but
also the labor engaged in mining and
other operations conducted in eon1ec-
ton with these works. In the statistics
for 1890, on the other hand, all data re-
lating to labor engaged in ore mining,
charcoal burning and other indus
tries dependent on the manufac-
ture of pig iron, but not directly con-
nected with it, have been omitted
The figures for these two periods. so
far as they relate to the number of
workingmen employed, can not, there
fore, be compared On the other hand.
when we consider the average wages
paid to the individual, we find a crafty
ing increase. In 1851 the average wages
were S3SS per year; in 1899 they were
1886 per year. an increase of p Der cent
The cost of the product, too. has been
steadily declining, while the quality
has not been lowered. In 1880 the num-
Der of tons of pig iron produced by the
blast furnaces of New England was
80, 957, valued at S1,O42, $50; in 1890 it
was "a, 335, valued at SSS6. ass. In other
words, the price has fallen over % per
cent since 1850.
There is nothing in these statistics
that will give the calamityite any reason
for rejoicing While it is true that
there has been some decline, this has
been not nearly so great as was be-
lieved, and it has been due not to the
tariff, but TO peculiar circumstances,
chief of which was the enormous growth
of the industry in other and more ia
vored parts of the country, which, says
Dr. Sweet, ''has gradually narrowed
the market of most of the New England
iron mills to the limits of local demand"
Reciprocity Not Inconsistent With Pro-
lection.
Protection levies duties on articles
which we produce at home, in order to
preserve American industries and the
higher wages of American workingmen-
1t also removes duties from all articles.
which we do not ourselves produce, be-
cause the duty on them is an unneces-
sary and burdensome tax to the con-
sumner.
Reciprocity removes the duties from
articles which we do not produce, and.
at the same time, gets concessions from
foreign countries by which they remove
Or lower their import duties on our
products exported to them
There is nothing inconsistent between
the two. 1t is already q part of the
protective system to remove duties from
things which we do not produce. And
if in addition to doing this we also
open markets for ourselves m other
countries, do we not reap two-fold
benefit?
From this it is evident that we can
only have reciprocity with those coun-
tries that produce some article which
we do do not or cannot produce For
example. reciprocity treaty between
Great Britain (suppOsing she were not
a free trade country and the United
States would probably not be possible.
for these two countries are too much
alike in climatic and other eondi-
tons Hence the necessary restriction
of reciprocity to, comparatively few
countries.
Is there anything inconsistent be-
tween the two systems? Far from it
Protection guards the products of our
labor at home. ..
Reciprocity opens to the products of
our labor a market abroad
One is the handmaiden of the other.
He Worked Unsaer Free Trade and Pro-
lection.
R. G. Hood, an English-born mechan-
ic living in Philadelphia. says In
England 1 worked as a mechanic in
e l~1,-& Nc yuanao