The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1904-09-17
BURDEN UPON OUR HOuFs
The Case Of Truss Fostsrsd BY ii.
Tariff and Iaz-fei Monopoly vs.. h,
Man With a Stationary lucou

No one, of course. knows aattor j,
the average wage Garner tba t.au
wages of labor have not moros 'ae
ward during the last five or civ up
as rapidly as tie cost OF fiyinc 's St
worker for daily wages b 8 not iAe
ever, felt the full loss of the inc,,a,
prices. He has, perhaps, been ahIo ~
demand an advance sufficient tn MI
up for part of the rise in nrire% &c
to work more hours per day or moUo
days per week in order sustain ~
customary standard of living of Liz
family. The complete effect a. ihS
change in prices has been falt onIv l1r
those whose incomes are stationed
This class includes some wage ycri,
ers, all clerks, many professional MON
and nearly all those whose incomes
are derived from investments. Tbs
steady advance of the last six vnsrs
i'll the cost of nearly every item of
necessary family supplies has been a
severe blow to every member of mis-
largr class, and has been the callso of
many sacrifices and privations. On 40.
count of it some have had D live use
comfortably, others have had to allan.
don their customary annual period, nf
rest and recreation. while still oilers
have been unable to lay aside the vSu.
al fund for rainy day. or have aetu.
ally been forced to withdraw all or
part of that already saved. That ihe
drain upon any fixed income has not
been exaggerated is evident when ac.
tual price comparisons are shown
ID ,f,h 1,.,F. IL.
reputation for The accuracy of its
price statistics and estimates. declares
that the -Otal yearly food supply of
an average individual cost $34.72 in
1897. and that the same quantities and
quality now costs 1888. a rise Of
1920 per cent. In other words. for
every dollar which the average head
= a family had to spend in 1897 for
rood he now has to spend $1.39. For
:; family CT six persons the rise thus
Indicated in the cost Of food would
amount to $S1. G6 per yeai tie total an.
nlal cost of food for such family
-now being. on an average. S2SY9S. as
compared with S--,iS.32 in 1897. Of
course, prices vary III different parts
of the country. and even at the same
prices families have different total
expenditures. depending upon their
taste. frugality and ability. These are
average figures. however. and prOGab-
ly represent with fairness hundreds Of
thousands of families whose Incomes
have failed to keep Z &c with the in
creased cost But ii is not alone for
food that the expenditure must now
be greater than in 1897. Nearly all
prices have moved upward ct the same
time. Dun'S Review declares that at
the prices of 1891 the clothing Of an
average individual cost Si3.S1. and tnat
now it costs S16.J1. requiring an ex-
penditure of S1.2G where 81 would
suffice in 1897. For. Il family Of six
the increase amounts TO S16.20 per
year. For other articles of necessary
supply the expenditure per individual
in 1897 was S23.93: it is now $500.
Thus the average annual cost OF the
necessary supplies FOR a
single individual has risen from SI246
in 1897 to $9719 at the present time,
and the head of a family must spend
for these articles S1.34 where he mad
to spend but 81 in 1897. The differ.
ence on the supplies of the family OF
six amounts to S14S.3S per year. I'M
doubtedly a great hardship to those
whose incomes are no larger than they
We're before. Those who seek the
cause of this dispropOrtiOnate advance
in prices will find It III the fact that
so many producers are enabled by the
tariff to charge more for their goods
in this country than they do when the
same goods are shipped to Canada or
to Europe TaX-fed monopoly ana
trusts foStered by the tariff have placed
this burden upon American homes.