The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-05-17
NOT WHAT THEY WANTED.

The house took lumber from the free
list and put it into the dutia5le list
with a tax of 81 thousand feet, rails
ing it 81 above the rate of the Mckln-
ley bill and returning to the rate OF
the act of 1888. 1t is supposed that II
did this in response to the demand Of
the lumber manufacturers Of the coun-
try. And these latter wanted it, not
at all for their own emolument, but for
the salvation of their poor workingmen
who could not compete with the pau
per labor" Of Canada. 1t will be re-
membered that our own lumber king,
Mr.. Weyerhaeuser, declared that the
lumber business was going to the dogs
because it paid it's labor an average of
S1.40 a day, whereas the lumber king
in Canada paid only Is cents a day for
his. If there is anything lumber king,
or any of the other kings who hold
plores, it is the degradation of his labor
ers that would ensue if the products
of their labor were not snugly shelter
ed from competition.
Moved, perhaps, by these piteous
comparisons of wages, moved, possibly,
by skepticisn, the senate adopted
resolution calling upon Mr.. Wright, the
commissioner Of labor, for a statement
showing the average wages paid labor
in Canada and in the United States,
and also for the labor cost per thou
sand feet there and here. Mr.. Wright
has replied in statement, briefly sum-
married. in the Washington dispatch
es, that the average wage paid in the
lumber industry in this country is Sill
a day and $1.41 in Canada, but that
the labor cost in a thousand feet Of
lumber, the amount paid by the manu-
facturer to labor for producing that
quantity of lumber, is 81 cents in this
country and $1.23 in Canada. This gives
higher rate per day in this country
than we obtained from the statistics
of the census, but the difference aris-
es, probably, from Mr. Wright's COM
putation on the basis of the average
number Of days actually employed,
while our computation was on the basis
OF 800 working days to the year.
But, even on the comparative wages
furnished by the commissioner of labor,
there is little in them to comfort the
lumber barons, while there is in them
the conclusive evidence that, on their
own theory, the duty need be but 80
cents thousand, and, in accord with
the Republican pretense of a tariff to
equalize the difference in labor cost
here and abroad, there need be no
duty whatever. Viewed from the stand
point Of the wage Garner in this indus
try, no tariff is needed, because he is
actually paid less than is his Canadian
brother when the comparison is made
on the only tenable ground, the value
OF what his labor produces. He gets
81 cents for making for his employer a
Canadian gets $1.23. This is the man
ufacturer's point of view and will be
the 1aborer's when he realizes the true
relation of his wages to the product
of his labor. Wages are insignificant
to the employer; what is the cost Of
labor in the product is the material
thing with him. He can afford to paw
twice the wages that a competitor
pays, if his Workmen produce twice the
quantity turned out by the workmen
of his opponent.
Viewed, then, from any standpoint,
the difference in wages paid per day,
or the difference in labor cost, the re-
port of Commissioner Wright is not
what the senate wanted if 1t were
asking for facts to support the propo-
s1tion of So tax on imports of lu1n
Der, nor what the lumber manufactur-
ers wanted to support their unfounded
assertions. What both want is permit
to increase the profits of the latter by
giving them the opportunity to get a
couple of dollars more On each thousand
feet of lumber from the unfortunate
users to whom the only alternative is
to pay the price or go without.