The herald., 1894-10-20
THE PROTECTIVE TARIFF AND
WAGES.

Our morning contemporary, with appn
rently great JUNCTION of spirit. assert!
that under the high protective tariff o
the Republican regime the coet OF pro-
tected articles to the consumer was re-
duced to one-half and sometimes one
fourth the former price; aud further
more. that at the s0me time wages in
creased ''so that the purchasing power
OF days work ia today from two tc
four times greater than it was thirty
years ago." With an air of dogmatiC
assertion altogether at variance with this
facts in the case, it goes ON to state thai
these demonstrabe and scarcely dis
puted facts furnish an argument for
protection" etc., etc,
We confess to q mental density thai
prevents US from believing the assertion
that the reduction in the price Of pro-
years has been due TO the high tariff,
But when it is alleged that during the
same period wages increased until the
purchasing power of a days work il
from two to four times greater than
thirty years ago. our mental vision
clears and we feel sure we are con-
ironted by statement in its essence
altogether erroneous.
In free-trade England be.e noii
of our Republican friends during cam
paign-ths report of the international
conference OF cotton spinners, held at
Manch ester in July last, shows that
during tho last 80 years wages advanced
from SO to 81 per cent, according to the
different departments Of the textile in
dussry. During the same time the
working hours had been reduced to 81 z
nours per week. or about 81 per cent.
1t is undisputed, We believe, that prices
generally in England have shown q
downward tendency for many yesrs.
Now 10 it to be conceived that the tariif
reduced prices in the United States and
free trade reduced prices in Great
Britain? The same cause under eim-
liar circumstances, ought to produce the
same result. AS matter Of immutable
fact prices in both countries have de-
clned by reason of improved production,
by machinery, by inventions sll COM
bining to increase the amount of pro-
duction in given time and lowering
the cost CT the product. An example
may be given to illustrate this:
The labor cost OF 247 hand weavers re-
quired to weave 5000 pounds of yarn
into 11,100 yards OF eheeting, each
weaving 45 yards per week and receiv-
ing SO per week ss wages. was SAL.
Labor cost now OF eight weavers, who
weave that amount in one week and re-
ceive Sc per week ss wages, s4S. Re-
ducsion in weaving, s693. Cost OF cloth
made by hand spinning and weaving,
at 40 cents per yard, s4440. Cost OF
cloth now at cente per yard, by ma
chinery, $777. Reduction in cost, s3663.
Our friends say the protective tariff
did that, not the spinning jenny and the
worked the machine. and the genius OF
the man who invented it had no part in
it, but only the protective tariff that
levied 80 Per cent duty on cotton yarn
and 81 per cent on cotton goods. Such
illustrations might be multiplied in
definitely. and they speak more elo-
quently than words as to the part the
protective tariff has had in reducing
prices.
Now as to how tho protective tariff
affects the wages of labor. In q con-
eular report made in 1882, in reporting
on cotton goods, it is stated that Great
Britain had 4S6.000 hands employed in
the manufacture. The product wes
valued at s474 9l6,363 The wages paid
were $l21 1862. 500. The value of the
product of each hand was $577. The
average wages of each waS $3.50. The
labor cost of the goods was 1851 per
cent. Compare this with the cotton
product OF the United States two years
before.
In 1880 the census returns of the
United States showed that wo had 172,
544 employees engaged III the manufac-
ture OF cotton goods. The value of these
products was $4,000, l10. The wages
paid aggregated s42, ,Q40,5l0. The value
OF the product OF each was s1l13. The
average wage was $243. The labor coei
Of the goods was 216 per cent. The
Englishman made for his employer
s977 worth OF goods. The American
made for his employer sl1l3 worth ol
goods. The Engishman got $25.6l fol
sl00 worth of work. The American goi
$2l,GO for 800 worth of work. Our
workman turned out for hie employer
$l36 more product than the Englshman
got and 81 less pay. To produce in
Great Britain the Slll3 worth of product
turned out by our own workmen would
have cost for labor 1884, which would
have been SAL more than was paid to
our workmen in the United States. But
the cotton manufacturers got the pro-
tective benefits all the same.
And thua does the protective tariff
affect the wages Of labor.
---------------