Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1892-09-08
PECK'S REPORT.
ABsURDlTY OF HIS CLAIMS. FOR
M'klNLEYlSM.

His Rash Conclusions GroundIess-Gen
eral Growth of Prosperity, Not McKin-
ley, Did the work-Progress in Spite
of Protection.
Labor Commissioner Peck, of Albany,
has prosecuted an investigation and
made discovery. He has investigated
'sthe effect of the tariff on labor and
wages" and discovered that protection is
boon and the Mckinley law blessing.
1t would hardly seem to be the func-
| ton of the state bureau of labor Stats
tics to go into partisan politics, especially
| in the midst of an exciting campaign.
| But Commissioner Peck, seeing that the
Republicans were fighting for protec-
ton and the Democrats fighting against
| it, felt it to be his official duty ''to estab-
| lish the truth or falsity of the premises
taken by the two great political parties
of the country" Accordingly he set
out to investigate the condition of labor
in this state the year before and the
year after the Mckinley law took effect.
He discovered that in the industrial
| field he covered there was an increase in
the latter year of $50, 900, 900 in prod
ucts, Sc, 900, 900 in wages and $23 in the
average yearly earnings of workingmen.
AS this prosperity appeared after the en-
actment of the Mckinley law, therefore,
as the situation looked to Commissioner
Peck, the Mckinley law must be the
cause of it.
This conclusion, with the figures from
which it was drawn, is duly set forth in
the ninth annual report of the bureau
of labor statistics, the essential part of
which The Herald has already pub
lished. The Republicans have hailed it's
publication as a boom for protection
from Democratic official in the great
est of manufacturing states, and will
doubtless flood the country with it as a
campaign document. Some of our
Democratic contemporaries, on the con-
trary, seem to be affected by feeling
of indignant amazement, bordering on
panic, that Democrat should put forth
such report at such time.
Now let us see what Peck's discovery
amounts to. He finds first that more
products were turned out and more
wages paid in manufacturing industries
in 1891 than 1890. Well, what of that?
1t is just what any we'll informed per-
son would expect. The increase in the
aggregate of wages and products in
manufactures has always been as steady
! and sure as the increase in population.
: That great truth prevailed in this coun-
try long before the Mckinley bill was
ever thought of, and it will prevail long
after that law disappears from our
statute books. Had Commissioner Peck
extended his investigation backward he
would have found in every year before
e the Mckinley law volume of wages
t and of products greater than that of the
l preceding year.
, The industrial march of New York
may be demonstrated by comparison Of
the federal census manufacturing stats
! tics of 1880 with those of 1970-the fig
= ures for 1890 not yet having been pub
4 lished by the census bureau. In 1870 the
value of manufactured products was
1928, 000,0 900; in 1880 it was 81 ,0S0, GOO,
900. In the former year the amount Of
: wages paid was $114, 000,0 900; in the lat
: ter it was $199, 100000.
: This shows during the decade yearly
r increase of more than $45, 900, 900 in the
4 value of products and nearly $500, 00t
. in the amount of wages. A more strik
a ing progress could be shown in the dec
r ade between 1880 and 1890 if the figure
y for the latter year were available. Ye
when Mr.. Peck discovers an increase be
tween 1890 and 1891 of $4,000, 900 il
wages and $50, 900, 900 in products h
thinks it can be attributed only to tn
Mckinley law.
= Mr.. Peck made no inquiry into tn
prices of the necessaries of life or tn
- cost of living. The nearest he comes t
% dealing with the rate of wages is to re
l. port an increase of twenty-three dollar
in the yearly average of earnings. /
q comparison of federal census statistic
:, on this point discloses a yearly averag
y of forty-eight dollars higher in 1880 tha
in 1870. Turning to Mr.. Peck's annua
report for 1888 we find that he then wen
;. into this question by asking nearly 500
0 employers whether the prevailing rate G
IS wages was higher or lower at that tim
than in 1888. Twenty-Five hundred re
y ported that the rate was about the same
u $50 replied it was higher, and less tina
- $50 said it was lower. The result of a.
| the replies was marked advance.
These figures are sufficient to sho1
n that an increase in the rate of wages G
81 in average yearly earnings is to be al
&c tributed to the Mckinley law with abou
ic as much certainty or reason as the e1
re ceptional strikes of this season are to b
S. attributed to the nearness of Mar
r AS for the volume of wages and that c
o products they have steadily and natura
IS ly risen with industrial progress. Thi
~ progress, like the advance of nations
% prosperity, has gone on and will go o
. under high tariff and low tariff. 1t ha
gone on in spite of excessive protection
- New York Herald.
"One Cent n Day,''