Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1892-10-10
PALACES REFUTED.
a RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT PROMPT
LY PUNCTURED.

so1utely and Not Relatively Than in
the United States-Some Striking State
ments Which Are Unanswerable.
The Tribune published letter written
to the New York World by Mr.. j.
Schoenhof, which it strongly Endorsed,
containing certain arguments in favor
of free trade. 1t was intended that the
following editorial should be printed in
the same issue as the communication
whose theories it controverted, but the
two got disunited:
Mr.. Schoenhof's main contention is
that the productivity of the American
workingman is far greater than that Of
his foreign competitor, and that this is
why his wages are higher, but that he
is paid no more than Europeans for the
actual amount of work done.
Schoenhof says that he found in min
ing coal that the German miner is paid
but little more than one-half per ton
what the American is paid-79 cents
against STAG to $1.63 in Illinois to SLIT
in Ohio per ton. Mining coal by the
ton is piecework, and workman makes
wages in proportion to the amount OF
work he does. AS the American gets
about twice as much per ton he makes
double the wages of the German coal
miner. This simple fact places Schoen-
hof's arguments hors de combat, so to
speak.
What is true of coal is true of all work
paid for by the piece. Unless the head
of the establishment is in great hurry
to fill orders it matters little to him that
one man does his work more rapidly
than another man. What he has to pay
for work is the thing which interests
him, and it is the sum he has to pay the
workman, and not the number Of hours
or minutes the workman is employed,
which fixes the price the employer asks
for the goods made in his factory.
The wages of compositors in Chicago
are nearly double what they are in Eng
land, and the price per 1000 ems is also
about double. Surprising it to be true,
which it is not, that the American COM
positor working by the 1000 ems is twice
as swift as the English one, what differ
ence would that make to the employer
when he has to pay twice as much for
filling column as the English employer
does? 1t would be for the interest of the
newspaper to employ the English COM
positors at shilling per 1000 ems,
which is about their pay. The quantity
of matter to be set up would be the
same in both cases, but the cost of com.
position would be reduced half. The
English printers might have to work
longer hours or more of them might
have to be employed, tut neither of those
things would affect the total cost of com.
position. That would depend solely on
the rate per thousand
1t follows then that where work is
paid for by the piece the employer is
concerned only about what he pays fol-
the work done, and not the length Of
time it takes the workman to do it.
1t appears from the various reports on
labor in foreign countries that all piece
work is paid for at far lower rates there
than here. Furthermore, the prices paid
for piecework regulate and govern to q
great extent those paid for work by the
day or hour. The price paid working
man for his days labor is based on ar
estimate of what the average mar
would do if he worked by the piece. Il
is midway figure between what thu
best and the poorer workman would
earn.
Hence it will be seen that the lowel
wages of Europe are lower absolutely
and not relatively. They are not lowe
because the men work slower, but be
cause they get less for each yard of clotl
they spin, each ton of coal they mine
each pound of steel or square foot O.
glass they make, each 1000 ems of typ
they set, and so on to the end Of thu
chapter.
1t is claimed by the free traders tina
the operatives in American cotton mill
tend more looms and spindles than thos'
in foreign factories. Surprising it to b,
30, those operatives are but very
. small per cent of the total number O
workingmen and women in the United
. States.
But to end this controversy with
final and convincing argument, the fac
remains that nearly all the competitiv,
goods made in Europe, no matter wha
their "cost Of production" may be, ar,
offered for sale by those who make then
at prices much below those asked fo
: similar goods made in this country
Why? Not because the foreign manu-
facturers are satisfied with much lowe
profits; not because they get their raw
materials much more cheaply, or be
cause transportation costs them less, bu
because they pay less per yard or pount
TO their labor for the products turnet
out. And that is just why they cal
, undersell American manufacturers i
: the protective duties are taken off, ant
ruin their business, close them up ant
drive them from the field, unless Amer
lean workmen will consent to reduc,
, their wages about to the per cent. Of tn
protection which Democratic free trad
. ers would repeal Chicago Tribune.