New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-05-31

Before Commissioner Wright's statements
regarding wages and the expenses OF living
pass into the general acceptance which his
honorable reputation would naturally secure
for them. il is we'll 10 draw attention to GER
tain limitations which mayodaby affect the
value of such work. Were it possible to aScer-
tain the exact share of each element in the
cost of living for the whole body of working
people. in this or in other countries, the result
would be Of great value. But in compiling the
BUDGETS Of 5,2s4 families Mr.. Wright has been
compelled to take what he could get. Few
workingm5n keep an exact record of their ex-
ponditurcs Those who do are not at all likely
to he truly representative of the entire body
of workers. even in single industry.
The persons who keep accurate records are
likol, {, be above the average in Thrift, economy
and Intelligence. Ii is in the nature of things
ominently probable that their expenditures
differ much in character, and in the proportion
of the different items, from those of working
men generally. The fact that a man knows
his expenditures are 10 be recorded, where they
will face him aftcrward and perhaps become
known t. others, has some tendency to restrain
many kinds Of outlay. Thus the report of Mr..
Wright sets forth that the average expenditure
of families engaged in cotton manufacture was
for liquors only SIG per year, which would
mean only $2Os. O0O, 900 for l3, 900, 600 fam
lilies in this country. but this is probably only
about a quarter of the cost Of liquors to con-
sumers. The explanation is not that cotton
workers rs a class are exceptionally temper
ate, but the people who keep detailed accounts
of all their expenditures are not as rule in
the habit of drinking much.
The Commissioner cannot select families
known to represent the average in any indus
try because not many families of that class
have kept accounts. Unfortunately, the de-
sire to include as many accounts as possible, in
order to give the results broad basis. tends
TO prevent the omission of some which arc
evidently exceptional. But with these cxccp-
tional accounts rcclSoned in, the +, suits shown
by other statements are altered. In place of
the truth which these other accounts would
tell something else is told, perhaps quite near
the fact, but perhaps far from it. Thus Mr..
Wrights reports show that the average ex
penditurc of cotton working families for news
papers books and other reading matter was
but S. 3d. while the average expenditure of
woollen- working families was 81 &c for the
same purpose and the average expenditure of
cotton working families in Great Britain for the
same purpose was So Sc. Again the cotton
working families in this country spend 50 &c
yearly for amusement but the average for Brit
ish families in the same occupation is stated at
S36 90. 1t is not easy TO account for such dis
crepanccs, except on the assumption that many
accounts are included, and more from coun-
try than another which do not give at all the
expenses Of these classes, or which give only
a guess at their amount.
Some telegraphed accounts of this report con-
tain statements which it may be presumed the
official report itself does not contain. Thus it
is asserted that the average woollen- working