Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-08-17
oxFoRD's sTANDPATTER.
Puts 1t Up To a Lewiston Editor and
Challenges McGiIlicuddy.

Dear Editor-You seem to appre-
ciate my Sizing up letter of August
nth and editorially asked for more
| from the game here and even went SO
far as tc command Sun readers to note
| the article You also asked for further
instruction, which shows you are eager
to learn. Whether your motive is sin
cere or not. | do not know. But I'm
going to put it up to you. You ask
that / name the articles on which the
| duties have been reduced to promote
competition and so benefit Oxford
county; you would be pleased to pub
lish it for the enlightenment of readers
of the Sun outside of Oxford county.
| Now while I'd be pleased to tell YOU
| I propose, as your teacher,-and all
good instructors use this method-to
put it UP to you and your readers.
Search for your own knowledge as we
| do in oxford. and if you will you'll
! stand pat also. The Payne Aldrich
bill can be easily compared with
Dingley rates. and / ask you to go
yourself and inform your readers as
soon as you can-anytime before Sept
12--publish your own findings after
comparing each schedule of the neces-
sarias of life as rated in the present
bill with those of the Dingley bill
IF you prepare and present your lesson
imperfectly. then 1, as your teacher,
will correct your errors. But errors will
be the result of gross carelessness on
your part. for the drawing off of the
schedules is simple.
But here is something | doubt if you
can figure out, SO I'll inform you. The
valuo CT the Protective system of tariff
is much more than what the democrats
usually complain about and harp upon
Daniel McGillicuddy is out in the by
ways and hedges telling people that
labor is paid 20 per cent more than
1896. while the cost of eliving has been
| raised 60 per cent. Very true, if he
takes as his standard the men en-
ployed. But Daniel McGillicuddy and
the whole Democratic stump. speaking
caboose from Aroostook in the North
to York in the South and from Oxford
in the west to Washington in the east.
can't compute the raise in wages that
the unemployed in 1896 got when they
finally got to work after the Dingley
bill was passed and Bryan and his
Free Silver trade was buried under
such a landslide of votes that 20 years
of McGillicuddys public utterances
have not resurrected the daring Boy
Orator. yet. According to statistics
there were 100000 men idle some
where between 1893 and 81. Now lets
reckon things up to this basis. 1t
cost those men to live 100 per cent
they were getting in wages no per cent.
After the Dingley bill was passed these
men found employment at from Sl.50
per day to S. and IS per day. Living
expenses went up to 100 per cent ac-
cording to Mr.. McGillicuddy What was
the per cent raise in wages please?
can you compute it Mr.. Editor?
What per cent of no wages at all is
81. 90 per day? Answer me. ye scholars
of economics. McGillicuddy don't dare
mention this on the stump Reckon
ing wages and cost of living by past
statistics is as bad mathematics as
trying to multiply by applying the rule
of long division and for grown ups it
comes under the head of wilful deceit.
Statistics show, perhaps. that man
working in the Washington Mills at
Lawrence, Mass. received in 1893 at
the rate of $500 per day. But those
same statistics don't tell you that he
was working half time and therefore
getting only 800 per day. If Nc
Gillicuddy would adopt that method of
finding the unknown quantity, he
would soon learn that 100000 men
got more than 100 per cent raise while
the cost of living has been raised by
go per cent a balance of so per
cent for the laborer under the Ding
ley bill. and this assuming that the
men worked half the time. But many
thousands worked not at all. Answer
editorially what per cent raise the lat
ter got. Now Mr.. Editor. this brings
me to the most important result of the
protective system of tariff. 1t is not
only sustaining but creative. 1t builds
mills. develops natural resources. 1t
creates opportunity whereby men find
comes some natural laws. Under its
fostering care natural resources be-
come sources of wealth and rather
than cite your instances and making
this article too long I'll refer you to
Blaine's reply to Gladstone, get it.
Read it. Publish it for the benefit Of
your readers outside of oxford"
In your editorial comment you also
state that "it would be interesting too,
| If he would explain "a little more
plainly how It is that the country is
so prosperous and yet no increase in
farms, = and you add sarcastically, -"
fas,,laor Kind al Proaneritv Hshen ii nays