Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1892-10-06
CREDULOUS MIR. PECK
RIDICULOUS REPORT OF THE NEW
YORK LABOR COMMISSIONER.


RIDICULOUS REPORT OF THE NEW
YORK LABOR COMMISSIONER.
Protected Manufacturers Concoct Theii
own Statistics and Peck Uses Them.
Fallacious Reasoning, Illogical Conclu-
slons and Grave misconceptions.
What is this report of Labor Commits
sioner Charles F. Peck, of New York,
which President Harrison is quoting and
about which the Republicans are making
as much fuss as'if it were the only really
valuable piece Of campaign material that
they have got hold Of this year? 1.
What did Mr.. Peck attempt to show?
2. What did he think would show this?
8. How did he obtain the required in
formation? 4. What figures or facts aid
he obtain? 8. What do and do not these
figures prove?
First-Mr. Peck attempted to show
"the effect of the tariff on labor and
wages" in order that voters might know
whether protective tariff" or a ''tariff
for revenue only" is to be preferred.
Second-He evidently assumed and
thought that increased production and
earnings would show that the effects Of
the high protective tariff act Of 1890 were
beneficial to labor. This was violent
assumption OH the part of Mr.. Peck and
d not creditable to him as a statistician,
logician or Democrat. There might
be a dozen different causes for either
high or low production or earnings, the
most important of which might have no
connection directly or indirectly with
tariffs. For example, bountiful rains
and favorable weather in 1891 produced
good crops here when there was search
ty abroad. This caused unusual returns
for our crops and boom in business in
. no way due to any tariff act. The low
price of cotton made cotton mills pros
porous and made more hours (day and
night work for spinners, weavers, etc.
Such causes as these may, and probably
do, account for most of the increased
production and earnings-which are by
no means synonymous with increased
wages and may mean more work for
more pay, the rate of wages being the
same or even lower, but Mr.. Peck sees
nothing except the tariff in all this. He
had "preconceived theory" which
makes the tariff responsible for prosper
ity or depression in business, and though
he pretends to be Democrat yet it is
evident that he is neither Democrat
nor does he understand Democratic doc
trine on the tariff question.
o%c Al 1oiv "a hic y.aDOrf
assumes, that protection" will entirely
prevent increased production and earn
ings or that it will raise or lower NOM
inal wages. They simply claim that it
has little or nothing to do with high OF
low wages, but that it does have much
to do with the amount of goods that can
be purchased with wages. But on this
most important phase of the subject Mr..
Peck is silent, except that he mentions
the omission in manner that would in
dictate that it is comparatively unlm
portant. That his ''preconceived the
cries" were in favor of protection is
obvious from his statement in the New
York Tribune of Sept. 8, in which he
says: IT see that protection is a gooo
thing for the manufacturers, and know
also that the manufacturers would mo-
pay higher prices for THERE labor it i
were not for the unions. By means o.
protection labor is able to enforce thu
demands that it makes upon the manu-
facturers." Of course there is but littl'
connection, except in the minds OF Mr.
Peck and other protectionists, between
duty on manufactured goods and wages
This report that has knocked the Chi
cago platform silly" and "raised tn
hopes of the Republicans 10 per cent.
lis then but the half fledged and illogica
conception of protectionist. In tn
name of Democracy it seeks to prove o
disprove the Republican claim thatpros
perity is impossible without "protec
ton" whereas Democrats do not den.
that in country like this-the bigges
free trade country in the world whel
territory is considered = considerabl
prosperity may accompany even NC
Kinley protection.
Third-Notice now how Mr.. Pee
went to work to obtain the data whic
was to settle forever this tariff discus
sion. "Some 5000 blanks" he says
sswere addressed and mailed to q
many separate establishments through
out the state" A circular letter IL
formed the manufacturers that "the II
formation received would be used onl
in a general way, SO that the business {
ssrN. individual. firm would not be recoe
>, Tx us guaranteed against d.
snnf these protected man!
ac,-s Republicans di
aHftry and then
Cup figures which shout
ave no doubt as to the effects of Nj
.-Kinleyism and sent them to Mr.. Peel
the gentleman who possesses a med'
for his ability to display figures, an
who deserves one for his methods OF CO
lecting them.
But what of the 1900 who did not
ply to Peck's circular, "How do you d
benefciaries of Mckinley" Why d
they not reply? Could they not NAL
figures expressive of their gratitude
Mckinley, or did they not have faith
Peck and believe that he would keep b
promise to shield them from exposu
by withholding all names from the pu
lie? 1t would be interesting to ieal
why they did not reply and what the
replies would have been. But perhal
they would have spoiled the report 7
Republican purposes, in which case IL
camnaign would have been tame al