Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1910-08-31
A HUhlBUG REPORT.

Senator Lodge and his standpat col
leagues have issued report to the
American people which processes to be
a conscientious verdict on the high
cost OF living. In reality it Is the
neatest piece of humbug that has been
put before the people since DR.. Cooks
discovery of the north pole. 1t is we'll
worth reading as specimen of the
literature of campaign deception which
has become one of the fine arts.
OF the audacious statements contain
ed in the report the following will serve
as a specimen: On page 81 the COM
mittee gives comparisons of food prices
in this country and in England which.
in it's opinion. 'show conclusively that
in 1900 prices in the United Kingdom
were on much higher level than in
the United States" 1t further makes
the statement that bacon was u per
cent. beef 90 per cent. mutton los per
cent. wheat SO per cent and corn I'll
per cent higher In England than In
America in 1900. OF course the OBJ
ject in representing the English prices
vide plausible explanation for the
fact that prices here have since then
risen twice as fast as they have In
England II the English price lever
was so high in 1900 as compared with
OURS then our subsequently rapid adj
vance in prices is only an attempt to
recover lost ground. and that is the
theory the committee advocates.
But how does it get the above fig
ures: Simply by Juggling them.
When it says that bacon was 73 per
cent higher in England than it was
with US in 1900 it is simply com
pairing Waterford Qrish' bacon with
Chicago "short clear Sides" When
it says that beef was 60 per cent
higher it only means that prime
English beef was selling at nearly IL
cents a pound wholesale when New
York native sides" were selling at 8
cents pound. And similarly with
the other commodities. Everybody
who knows anything about Waterford
bacon and the prime roast beef Of old
England knows that these articles are
always much more costly than import
ed varieties and that there is no CON-
parison' between them. The commit
tee makes the admission that the prices
compared are not for Identical articles.
but if they are not for identical ar
ticles what ground has it for say
| ing that lin 1900 prices in the United
Kingdom were on much higher level
than in the United States?'
The simple truth is that English
prices were higher than American
prices where the English commodity
was Of superior grade to the Ameri-
can commodity. If the method Of
comparison adopted by the committee
is admissible it would be easy to show
| from the figures used by it that
English prices were lower in 1900 than
American prices. Thus Chicago ''short
clear Sides are given as selling at
TSP cents pound. swhereas at Liv.
erpooI "American Cumberland cut
was in the same year selling at 7.49
cents pound. Therefore the price
of bacon. instead of being 73 per cent
higher in England than here in 1900
was actually lower. The prices here
compared are not. of course. for idcn
tical articles. but they are likely to be
much more nearly identical than thu
articles compared by the committee.
If prices of food products were
higher in England than in this country
in 1900 the committee has brought NJ
evidence to show it.. We do know
however. that the cost OF transporta
ton measures the difference in price
in the case OF goods shipped from
here to England. AS great deal O.
the foodstuffs used by England come!
from this country we should expec
English prices to be slightly highe
in the case of those articles. and thi
is probably the truth.
!. We still want an answer to the ques
ton which the committee has 81
! Cld1l1ly SuHhCu ASl tuS ia
packers and their friends the stand
patters answer it. or judgment goes b.
default. 1t is this: Why has American
bacon. as quoted in the report. ad
> vanced in price 56 per cent in tel
, years. whereas Irish bacon has ad
vanced only IS per cent? Why ha
mutton advanced in price 50 per cen
in New York in ten years. wherea
Scotch mutton was selling at pc
cent less in 1910 than it was in 1900
We are taking only the figures give
, in the report and are Interpreting then
in our own way as fairly as we car
We say that somebody must be NAL,
ing enormous profits at the expense o
> the consumer in this country when W
, compare our own precipitous advanc
of prices with the moderate advanc
shown by the free trade country.
= +. SCANLON.