Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1895-10-10
Industrial Legislation.


In the columns of the Potosi Journal
we see that ga. Brand" takes US to
task for various editorial shortcom-
mings. logical and otherwise; and at
the same time pitches at us a job-lot of
statistics Of various styles and sizes.
Whether he is a brand plucked from
the burning, or one that will be -four
ished in Washington county politics
during the campaign of ninety-six. We
have no means of determining; but it is
certain that he has new and refresh
ing brand OF logic. quite as mixed as
the intellect of topper after sampling
several brands of Robinson County
whiskey. He says, in reply to the
REGISTERS article of August 9Th,
1895:
The facts in the case are that from
1890 to 1892. in 455 different Industrial
establishments the average raise wages
was per cent. over 1890; and that
80, 2S5 extra hands were employed,
and $40. 100000 new capital invested;
and in 1898, under the shadow of tariff
reform. labor decreased 609 per cent,
wages decreased 50 per cent, business
decreased 47.2 per cent; number of
hands out of work 101.765; total loss
in weekly wages $l,202, S51.36; aver
age decrease in rate of wages 50. 80
per week.
From history and the latest investi-
CATION, September, 1895, it is appar-
emit that the industrial condition of the
United States has relrogressed more
| than half decade: that in 1895 labor
earned IA per cent. less wages than in
1889; that the result of Democrat
administration and free trade fanatic
congress is that labor is earning $780,
900, 900 less this year than in 1889.
This retrogression is Democratic. You
hear a great deal now of the advance
in wages, but they fail to tell that it is
just little advance over 1894; they
fail to tell the decrease in wages is
still As per cent. below 1892. Nor do
they tell the poor laborer on account
of tariff reform the price of his shoes
has advanced about 40 per cent; his
nails to tack boards over his poor fam
lily have advanced nearly 100 per cent,
from which they promised to take the
tariff off and make them cheap.
He does not condescend to mention
where he obtained the statistics above
quoted; perhaps he considers any in
quiry of this nature as Impairment If
this "shadow of Tariff Reform" was
fraught with such disaster, is it not a
little remarkable that between the
years 1890 and 1892 four hundred and
fifty-five different Industrial establish
ments should have raised wages five
per cent? If we remember Alright it
was in 1890 that the shadow of Tariff
Reform" extended itself from the Rio
Grande to the Lake of the Woods, and
from ocean to ocean. The people must
have been very slow to recognize the
fact that there was a cloud over the
benefcent sun of Projections; or it
may be that the first effects of this
..shadow" were beneficial. We do not
tell the poor laborer that son account
of Tariff Reform the price of his shoes
has advanced about forty per cent; his
nails to tack boards over his poor fam
lily have advanced one hundred per
cent, because personally we object to
falsehood of every nature, and never
use one as a substitute for argument,
or the foundation upon which to base
one, if we know it. We hope the
reason we assign will be perfectly sat-
isfactory to Mr.. brand"
But why should he complain of high
prices? Is not this the thing that Pro-
tectionists of all brands are striving
for? Did not the great apostle OF Pro.
lection associate the words ..cheap and
nasty" so as to make it clear that one
was a synonym for the other? Would
he have the poor laboring man wear
s.nasty" shoes? Would he have him
tack boards over his poor family with
"nasty" nails. or would he have him
use "nasty" sugar or ''nasty" clothing!
Was there any considerable reduction
Of the tariff upon nails or shoes? II
the writer continues this line of argu.
ment he will find himself kicked out Of
the party Of Protection some fine morn.
ing.
We did, on August 10th, 1898, want
Congress to act quickly; we wanted a
special session il May of that year.
We desired that there should be no de-
lay in striking the shackles from our
commerce. We look upon the taking
of money from the pocket of another,
by means of the taxing power. and
without an adequate compensation. as
a species Of 1egalized sneak-thievery.
We are opposed to robbery, whether
upon the highway or under the forms
of law; therefore we wanted the Nc
Kinley Bill wiped from the statute
book as soon as it could be done. This
was not to be, however. Its front ele-
walton was changed somewhat, and the
bill was retained. The changes were
mainly in the right direction, and we
J hope to improve upon them.