The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1893-09-21

Chneu 10 5000.
Another significant fact that can not
be controverted Is th the wages Of
men employed in different protected In
dustries bear no proportion whatever
TO the duties upon the articles
In the manufacture Of which they are
severally employed More potent still
is the fact that men engaged in like In
dustries and protected by the same du-
ties, but employed in different sections
of our country, do not receive equal
compensation for the same amount Of
work.
This is most striltingly exemplified
by the manufacturing statistics In the
several states The disparity in the
average wages of employees in manu-
featuring establishments of the same
kind, in the various states of the union,
could not we'll be greater than it's Tho
inequalities in wages exists TO such q
degree in every protected industry that
the commissioner of labor of the
United States has officially declared
that there is no such thing as an Amer
lean rate of wages, and II there be no
such rate common TO the whole country
the absurdity Of the claim that protect
i've tariffs fix, regulate and control the
wages Of labor is convincingly estab-
lished.
The proposition that high protection
means high wages, or that 1t will In
crease the wages Of labor, is as clearly
disproved by the experience Of nations
other than our own. France, Germany,
Italy, Spain, all have protective tariffs
But, in Germany with higher tariff
than France, the wages paid TO labor
are lower than in the latter country,
and in Italy and Spain with their tariffs
that are almost prohibitory in charac-
ter, wages are lower than in Germany.
While in free trade England wages are
upon an average twice as high as In
Germany, with Its protective tariffa
And what of China2 In that of the or
ient, oldest of empires, the protection
of "home industries" has attained per-
fection, and yet wages of labor are so
low that 1t is said, and said with truth,
that the monthly earnings of Chi
nese laborer will not pay the cost of
one square meal for one of the tariff
barons created by our Mckinley system
of protection"
But, again, that the law of supply
and demand, not protection. is the
prIncIpai element IN the ad1ustmenJ OF
the wages of labor, is further attested
by the fact that the wages Of non-pro-
tected laborers, both skilled and un-
skilled, are as rule as high, and In
many cases much higher than those re-
ceived by men ostensibly protected by
the highest of tariff duties
The theory of protection for Amer
lean labor against the pauper labor of
England and Europe" which is the
latest pretext for the maintenance of
the protective system, was conceived in
hypocrisy and fraud. It was intended
as an appeal to the prejudices of igno-
rant and unthinking people.
It has no foundation upon which to
rest It will not stand the test of
honest investigation. Such an investi-
cation will show that the inequalities
of wages in the industries of the same
kind, in the several states of the union,
are as many, and oftentimes as great,
as like inequalities between some of
the states and England, which is al
sustain him in his position.
Not only is this true, but In some Of
the industries in England the average
Of the wages paid TO the operatives ex-
ceeds that of the wages paid in the in
dustries of the same kind, in some por-
tions of this country. For example,
the average rate of wages paid in the
cotton mills of England is 81. II per day,
while in Vermont It is only s1.16.
We might multiply cases of this kind.
But, if we take an extreme case where
the difference is the other way, that of
a man working In a shoe factory in
Massachusetts,, who receives upon an
average more than twice as much
money for his work per week as does o
man working in q shoe factory In
England, we can still prove that our
working man does not need to be pro-
tected against the lower wages of his
fellow-workman in England.
man making mems shoes in q fac
tory In Massachusetts earns upon an
average of S11. IS per week; man in a
factory in England, making shoes Of
the same kind and quality, earns less
than one-haf of this sum-sA 90
per week; but we can not,
from this fact alone, conclude that
the labor of the Massachusetts man Is
sold for more than twice as much
money as the labor of the Englishman.
We must go q step farther In our In
vestigation and ascertain what amount
Of work each man Is required to do,
nd do 60 u Ia rlxy
before we can determine the question
of relative compensation between them
In other words we must look to the
product of the labor of each in connec-
tion with his wages, to determine
which of them is actually getting
the higher and better compensa-
tion for his work When we do
this we find that the Massachu-
sets man makes thirty-fve pairs of
shoes per week for which he receives
thirty-three cents per pair TO earn his
s11. So, and that the Englishman makes
but ten pair of shoes per week for
which he gets fifty cents per pair to
earn his $500. If the English shoe
maker were TO make thirty-five pairs Of
mems shoes per week instead of his
ten pairs, and were TO still get his fifty
cents per pair for them, his weekly
wages would amount TO $3.50 as
against the Massachusetts shoemakers
s11. 55, thus showing that the wages he
receives are in reality higher, not low
er than the Massachusetts man.
But, to make the comparison be-
tween them full and complete, we
must consider another thing, the pur-
chasing power OF the wages