The record-union., 1892-10-19

The United States Senate Finance Com
mittee, after an exhaustive examination
of the subject over wide field, found this
to be true. They examined articles falling
under seven classes: Food, clothing,
fuel and lighting, house furnishing goods,
drugs and chemicals. metals ana imple-
ments, lumber and building materials.
The result showed an average decline
IN May, 1892 of 3.4 per cent. as compared
with prices just before the Act passed in
1890.
The committee also found that wages had
slightly advanced. Reduced to money,
the committee found on an average in
come OF $500 for each family there was
saving by this increase of wages and de-
crease OF cost of living of S325, 900. 900.
AND this IS called robbery by tho Demo
cratic platform.
In recent speech at Providence, r. l.,
Mr.. Cleveland said: "At any rate, the
consumer has found life harder since this
reform Mckinley billl than before, and
II there IS working man anywhere who
has had his wages increased by virtue Of
its operation he has not made himself
known"
Fortunately for the vindication of
truth and the right most important Off
cial report has been given to the world
that completely refutes Mr.. Cleveland
and his party platform on this subject.
Chas. +. Peck was appointed Commits
sioner of Labor for the State of New
York. He is a Democrat, appointed
originally by Mr.. Cleveland and reap
pointed by Governor Hill. 1t comes To
us with the highest sanction and must be-
accepted as true.
The period embraced in the report is
the year Immediately before the McKin-
ley bill took effect and the year immedi-
ately after. The statistics relate only to
the wholesale manufacturing establish
ments.
Mr.. Peck says as to his motive: More
work, higher wages, shorter hours of la
Dor and uneNampled prosperity were
among the inducements held out to the
wage earners by the advocates of protec-
ton.
ION the other hand, the advocates of the
policy tof tariff for revenue only con-
tended that only through reform of
our tariff laws, 4. g., reduction of our
revenues to a basis of raising lust suffi-
clent money to defray the expenses Of
government, economically administered,
could all these desirable results be at
tanned.
1T was by reason of this situation, no
less than with q view to establish the
truth or falsity of the premises taken by
the two great political parties of the
country, that | finally decided to make
the subject of The Effect of the Tariff on
Labor and Wages one of special inVesti-
SdLlOu Ii udS DG6u MY GnUedNOf TO IN
vestigate only that phase of the subject
which relates simply to the increase or
decrease of production and the rate of
wages paid.'
There were sixtY-seven industries
covered and included in his table show
ing increases and decreases of wages and
amount of production.
He continues in his report: sit is need
less to comment upon the separate flg-
ures or the totals included in the table;
they tell their own story simply with
absolute truth.
1T appears there was a net increase in
wages of S6,377 ,925 in the year 1891 as
compared with the amount paid in 1890,
and net increase Of production of S31,-
3l5, ,130 IS in the year 1891 over 1880.
"A simple analysis of this table further
demonstrates the interesting fact that of
the sixty-seven industries covered II per
cent. OF them show an increase either of
wages or product or both, and that there
were no less than S9,7l7 instances of indI-
vidual increases Of wages during the same
year,
He then submits another table showing
a comparison OF the average yearly earn
ings. OF this table he says:
The figures included in the above
table No. p are in strict harmony with
the facts established in table No. l.
'Of the sixty eight industries included
fp pCA NSAlL. vi IAIGlil 5LOW all 4uGIEtLSCu
average yearly earning in the year 1891,
while the total average increase of yearly
earnings Of the 285,000 employees was
S23 II.
1.-The average of yearly earnings of the
employees in the ffty-one trades Showing
an increase was S43 81 in 1891, as COM
pared with $780,"
In speaking of the report Mr.. Peck
says: Tariff, whether levied for reve-
nue. only or for revenue with incidental
protection of American manufacturers
and American labor, is certainly d ques-
ton of such vast import as to enlist the
most thorough and dispassionate investi-
CATION at the hands of the American peo-
pie. And while my present report has
under the law been confined to the State
of New York, its results can but be taken
as indicative of the conditions existing
in every section of our country where
manufacturing and industrial pursuits
are followed"
/ submit this evidence as conclusive of
our case, and as overwhelmingly re-
futing Mr.. Cleveland and his platform.
He said: "If there is a workingman
anywhere who has had his wages
increased by the operation of the Nc
Kinley bill he has not made the fact
known"
Here are IS, 9,7I7 rising up in Mr.. Cleve-
lands own State and making known the
fact.
Mr.. Peck's report is being attacked all
along the Democratic line; but no one
has had access to all the figures from
which he drew his conclusions. We
must accept these conclusions until he is
discredited as a man and a statistician,
and this has not been and cannot be done.
WAGES OF FARM LABOR.
The Department of Agriculture has
issued an important pamphlet covering
the whole subject of farm labor in the
United States, for a long period of years.
I cannot go into the details of this report.
1t shows that in fifty years, since 1910,
farm wages have nearly doubled.
At the beginning OF the war the aver
age was about Sll per month. Wages
rose rapidly upon the withdrawal of
about 100000 of soldiers in the two
armies, and the present average rate per
annum is now stated to be S232. The av-
erage ih Great Britain Is $50; France,
SIPS; Holland, sl00 Germany, $40: Rus
sia, $50; Italy, $50; India, $50. These
tables also show slight Increase of wages
since 1890.
sCeAR.
want to say word about the import
ance Of our Republican Liquidation as to
sugar. In the ten years before the Nc
Kinley free sugar bill passed we had i'm
ported sugar, omittine molasses, of the
value of 1851, sos. .0S9; on this we paid duty
of S5O2, ,3l0, ,343; total of 81 1856, 800 432, be-
ing an annual average of about 5l86 ,O00,-
900. In 1890 we consumed of sugar J. .309,-
86S tons: we made of cane sugar 1860
tons; excess over production, LIB, ,365
tons.
1t is hard to realize the significance of
these figures. We paid out more money
for our imported sugar in 1890 than we
got for all our wheat exports that year,
and this had been going on for years and
years.
We had kept duty on sugar to protect
the Louisiana ralantnru l1Irt thua induatrv