; I

I \ I

i! "'Ml '

, ii'ii

P \

' ■«

is'ii

f /. VS

Pit

s!‘: I

(if

'1; ?

33T3

lY85t

.V$’£

^hv:

Ip'l;

"-pm4

Cp4 Pi

11 ® ‘

‘At**Ji!:

v&tx.:

lip

&%■/" • .■ - ' 1 ■,: ; ■

v’.- ,

I' ' V

' ' ' , ' r 1 ■ - '' NOTICE: Return or renew all Library MateriaIsl The Minimum Fee for

' ' • • ■ -< '

, ' ;! ,
' , '

V-]

: ' ■ v,1','

■'V. •i‘” 7 v-
.....- . , .

. , -

.•.m ■ v «mU maf icauii iii ui3iiii93ai irom me umversuy.

; ■ . ‘ • ' • : To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400

' , ’ , 1 ' t ' ' ' • 1 1 . UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

■v

The person charging this material is responsible for
its return to the library from which it was withdrawn
on or before the Latest Date stamped below.

Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli-
nary action and may result in dismissal from the University.

To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400

............................

1 - i

wm:m&

rWWH-::,:,

■ ■ . '

'V-: "'T-.

■I

i |

• 1 ' '• , ‘

fM m

UNIVERSITY

; , ■ LIBK

•- ^ v..;,-'-.: 1 ' c,„„ -;

1K 1' i ‘ ■’

, . ■ : ; ';, ■

■' ■ '

Ja 09-20M

-f

THE TRUE AMERICAN POLICY,

AH ADDRESS

TO THE

WORKING MEN,

STATEMENTS SHOWING THE INCREASE OF MANUFACTURING IN-
DUSTRY AND WEALTH UNDER A PROTECTIVE TARIFF,
RATES OF WAGES IN EUROPE AS COMPARED
WITH THE UNITED STATES, Etc.,

PUBLISHED AT 71 WEST BROADWAY, NEW YORK, BY THE NATIONAL CHAMBER
OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE.

BY THE

EDITOR OP “AMERICA,”

TO WHICH ARE APPEHDED

EDWARD YOUNG, Ph.D.,

(Late Chief of the U. S Bureau of Statistics).

Entered According to Act op Congress in the Year 1882, in the Office of the
Librarian of Congress, Washington, D. C.PROTECT LABOR!

• • *•*•»•» •
- . v : :•:

.*.

A p:■ I.

• ***•*' *«***»'**. * * * ** J*

My object in these few pages is to consider the effects of a pro-
tective policy upon the employments of the people and the wages
of labor.

I shall begin with two statements that nobody can controvert.

1. It is an admitted fact that all services are better remunerated
in the United States than in Europe. The difference in favor of
our working people varies considerably, according to the country
with which a comparison is made; but if we take England, where
the development of industry is greatest, we find, upon careful in-
vestigation, that the rates of wages prevailing there, whether com-
puted in money or in comforts, are still vastly less than here.*

2. Hence a prodigious exodus from all parts of Europe to these
•shores. Yet, singular as it may appear, this additional supply of
skill and muscle exercises no visible pressure on the remuneration
of labor in this country. It is readily absorbed by our growing
industries at the rates of compensation that have induced it.

Why?

Are not these two facts in direct conflict with the free-trade
theory, that “Wages cannot depend on anything but the supply
and the demand of labor. ”f

Men are differently rewarded in different parts of the world for
equivalent services, and it is not in sparsely populated countries
that they receive the highest wages; neither is it where their labor
is in greatest demand. In China, in India, the muscular power of
the laborer is taxed to the utmost, but his pittance cannot be
worse. The demand for manual labor is greater there than here,
and owing to the absence of machinery there is no glut of human
tools throughout the Far East, although there may be a glut of
human stomachs. Why is it, then, that men are found in Asia to
carry coal on their backs over mountains at the rate of twenty-five

*For exact figures, see Appendix—Wages in Europe and America compared, by Edward

Young, Ph. D., late Chief of the U. S. Bureau of Statistics.

f Prof. Sumner’s speech, at a meeting of the New York Free Trade Club held in April, 1882.PROTECT LABOR. B

cents per ton, while no man could be found in America to do such
work at any price ?

There is evidently in this matter of labor a factor at work other
than the so-called infallible law of supply and demand; a factor
sufficiently powerful to change the effects of this law according to
the character of the populations among which it operates. This
factor, the result of moral forces for which the free traders affect
the most extraordinary contempt, is to be found in the require-
ments of the laboring man, that increase in the ratio of his ad-
vance on the road to civilization; and these requirements at any
time or place constitute the Natural Cost of Labor at that
time or at that place.

Yes, in the industrial system of every nation the centre to which
wages gravitate is the average

Standard of Requirements

of its workers, rising as each independent nation moves higher
up toward that common point of attraction—the sun of indus-
trial progress. In countries far behind wages are low; not be-
cause there is less demand for labor, since more effort is needed
to produce comparatively less than in more advanced common-
wealths, but because the standard of living is necessarily low. In
America, however, people expect and get

American Wages.

And as long as we shall maintain a protective policy, the stream
of immigration, constantly pouring into the channels of American
industry, cannot have the effect of lowering the level of American
} labor; for the number of laborers is not so much the
H thing to be considered as the number of them to
i whom labor can. be given. Therefore we see that under
the present system the possibilities of remunerative employment
are steadily keeping pace with the increase of population; and,
thanks to the magnitude of our natural resources, there are in
this country profitable outlets for human energy awaiting millions
that are still unborn. The people who leave in disgust the shores
of Great Britain will no longer vegetate for the benefit of her
merchants, that these may grow wealthy by underselling
every country in its own markets. Not only do they
bring to America their skill and energy, their producing power,
but also their purchasing ability, vastly increased by a more lib-
eral remuneration of their services. Cheap land will secure them

’ CHEAP FOOD, AND PROTECTION FAIR PAY.

ip.' 2. £ ^ ^ ^4

PROTECT LABOR.

II.

Bat although the American worker need not fear the cumpcLf*
tion of European immigrants, who come here to enjoy the full
benefits of our social, political and industrial system, he cannot
fear too much the competition of cheap foreign labor
in the form of cheap foreign products. In other words,
Let Him Fear Free Trade*
which the Democratic party is attempting to force upon this
country in the name of liberty. Workingmen, beware!

Free trade would blow out every furnace, shut down every mill,,
and practically re-establish slavery by degrading American labor.

And to accomplish this, politicians of the free-trade school rely
upon the mechanics themselves—upon their supposed ignorance
of the tariff question.

First, they point to the wealth and greatness of England under
a free-trade policy. The dazzling figures of her foreign commerce
are attractively spread before us. We might be wealthier, they
say, if we would only follow her example.

Fet Us Sift This Sophistry.

A nation is not necessarily wealthy in proportion to its foreign
trade. It is always wealthy in proportion to its
domestic exchanges.

England is no exception to this rule. In almost everything she
depends on the world. She depends on it for her supply of food
and raw materials; and she can pay for them in manufactures
only. Her trade abroad is enormous; but her people
have a less averave of comfort than ours.* Had she
not been strong in intellect and lucky in war she would be to-day
a very poor country. Even now she might be ruined in a day.
Therefore, in sight of every port stand her men-of-war, ready to
force it open, if necessary, to her merchant vessels; and the words,
“ To be or not to be,” are plainly written on her flag wherever
it floats.

She receives much from the world, and having in good time
become creditor of many nations, she returns now considerably
less than she receivesf; but, the true and final measure of her

* See condition of working people of England in Young's “Labor in Europe and America.”
t The foreign trade of the United Kingdom in the periods indicated was as follows:

Imports. Exports. Excess of Imports.

In the year 1881..................£ 397,022,489 £ 297,082,-775 £99,939,714

In 5 years, 1877-81............... 1,934.434,354 1,330,110,483 604,323,871

Yearly average.................... 386,886,871 266,022,096 - 120,864,775

Showing an average annual excess of imports over exports amounting to £120,864,775. In
other words, the annual tribute in products of labor, which the capitalists of Great Britain,
as creditors of various nations and colonies, are enabled to impose upon the world, amounts
U six hundred millions of dollars.PEOTECT LABOE.

internal prosperity is the amount of trade between her own peo-
ple—what they consume; what they get from each other
in exchange for their respective labor and its products. By
this measure she is less wealthy than we are, fOT they get less
than we do.

Yes, the figures of her foreign trade are dazzling. But people
don’t live to do business; they do business to live. If with all her
income from foreign investments, and all her factories, and all her
ships, and all the millions that pass through her banks, England
<3an only secure to the average British subject a less comfortable
home than is enjoyed by the average American citizen, she
possesses nothing that we should envy.

True, she could not maintain even that inferior standard of re-
quirements with less enterprise. All the bustle and activity she
displays along her coast and in foreign ports is necessary to her
existence. Her corn and cotton fields, her flocks and herds are
in her ships.

Sink the Ships, you Sink England.

Here, then, is a nation, greater than which there is none in all
that constitutes external greatness; reaping to-day the fruits of
a bold, egotistic and far-sighted statesmanship, which for centuries
has never ceased to preside over her councils; and enjoying all
the artificial advantages which immense accumulations of capital,
wisely distributed throughout the world in all the channels of
production, transportation and finance, can possibly confer. Yet,
many of her people are miserable, and the actual amount, per
capita, of products consumed by them is less than in this country.
They must be satisfied with a small remuneration for converting
into manufactures the raw materials of the world, and with the
development of industry everywhere that remuneration must
grow smaller.

Bat What Bo We See m America?

An enormous production, more than ninety per cent, of which,
with the exception of cotton and tobacco, is consumed at home,*
and an internal commerce which, though less costly, dwarfs the
foreign traffic of England. Are the commodities thus exchanged
of no value to us because they never crossed the ocean?

The benefits derived by this country from the protective "tariff
are incalculable. They' are seen everywhere; in the growth of
our manufacturing cities; in the diversification of industry; in

* See Appendix-—The production in 1880; Export in the same year.6

PROTECT LABOR.

the employment of labor; in the home demand for food and raw
materials, and the consequent development of agriculture; in the
lower price of every commodity produced here in competition
with the foreigner; in the rapid accumulation of capital; in our
vast network of railroads; in the prompt payment of the public
debt; in our comparative freedom from taxation; in the liberal
education within the reach of every child,* and in the higher
standard of comfort enjoyed by the American people. There is
not a roof in the land under which its beneficial effects cannot be
discerned by the economist or the moral philosopher. Indeed,,
both the English mechanic and the English farmer look to this as
the promised land. Shall we, at the beck of the Democratic
party, surrender Congress to British legislators, turn our manu-
facturing States into a desert, and bowing low to the Cobden
Club, mutter humbly: “Rule, Britannia?”

III.

Ingenious sophists point also to the crudeness of some tariff laws
and ask you, working men, to remove the defect by tearing down
the structure. At the request of the Protectionists themselves, a*
Taeiff Commission has been instituted, with a view to the judi-
cious revision of these laws. An opportunity was thus offered to-
the agents of Great Britain for a crusade against American
industry. Don’t they improve it wonderfully? Importers of
.British goods, merchants and speculators,heretofore better known
for their wealth-absorbing inclinations than for their devotion to
the welfare of the people, have suddenly become the friends of
the oppressed. Protection, they say, fosters

Monopoly

and works all the time against improvement. Believe that,,
working men, upon the word of those new friends. Shut your
eyes to the glaring light of our national development. Admit, if
you can, that the American people have been slow to avail them-
selves of .their inventive faculties; that they are wanting in manu-
facturing enterprise; and that the spirit of competition, so dear
to the free trade school, has not been more active among our
citizens under a protective system than it could by any possibility
have been if crushed in its infancy by the superior strength of
the pld established industries of Europe.

* The total amount received from taxation for support of public schools in the United?
States during the year 1880 was $70,371,435; from funds and rents, $0,580,632; total $76,952,067£
yearly expenditure per capita of pupils in public schools $7.87.PROTECT LABOR.

Why, you cannot admit that? Neither, .caji I, a&d. fgr good
reasons. Wherever monopoly :H* Exists no-

where to the same extent as in fr^e jb^a^§ .England—^/ springs
from other eauses than tHeimflffJ Bii-it r<Mai&ed for

the free trader to find no other remedy for its* suppre^ftffi'than

• ***. *«* £ v* •

the suppression of industry. • • ••• *•/. .**.

Abuse, Injustice, Oppression'olKtfrV Weak

are great evils everywhere. But nowhere are they less than here;
and in this mighty republic, firmly rooted in the rights of man,
the nobility of genius and the dignity of labor, no wrong can last
longer than the people are willing to permit. When it is so
entirely within our power, as a political body, to control our re-
sources, to regulate their application, and in many ways to compel
American capital to do its duty, shall we confess our inability to
exercise intelligently these precious rights, give up the advantages
of our independent industrial system, and throw ourselves on the
mercy of foreign monopolists ?

Under any circumstances that we may conceive, other than
revolution and war, capital is Strong, and its owners can
take care of themselves. Not so with labor.

Free trade would entail a temporary loss upon the capitalists
engaged in domestic industry; it would inflict a permanent in-
jury cn the working men.

While the first would soon recover their ground of vantage, the
latter would forever have lost their hard-won advance; for capital
would still command here the rate of profits prevailing every-
where, whereas labor could exact no higher rate of wages than
that paid elsewhere.

Therefore I say, This fight is the working man’s
fight. It is the fight of American labor against
foreign capital.

Let that be settled first. Masters of their own domain under
a protective policy, there is no question, political, economical, or
social, that the people of the United States, armed with the bal-
lot, cannot settle peacefully among themselves.

IV.

The tree is known by its fruits. After twenty years of steady
protection, we find our mechanical, agricultural and scientific
abilities developed and employed in every possible channel. Is
not that policy the best which confers upon a nation the maxi-
mum benefit ?8 PROTECT LABOR

In one aspect pnly .can it be said that we are deficient. Since
British pn'yateerS/ Jimiqr t|ie flag of our rebellious States, drove
our ships froM th6 sfea* Vd have been at the mercy of foreign vessels
—mostly: English* 0r„ bt£ilt#<i{i (England—for the development of
ourfdrei^ ijT^rftune trade is one of the few industries

to wfiich pureg9ve^nnj§^t.has failed to extend adequate protec-
tion, an$. til’d tf&stut ts^en in our lamentable dependence on
British «mertebants for** file*’ purchase of anything foreign that we
must buy, and for the sale of any surplus that we can spare. As

The Ship Question

must grow in importance until it affects every employment
throughout the country, working men should understand it well.

In discussing it the friends of England, with much cunning and
hypocrisy, appeal to the national sentiment. They tell us of the
great shame it is for America to be so small on the sea; they re-
mind us of the glorious time when our flag floated proudly at the
masthead of wooden ships in every part of the world; and they
compare the immense volume of our foreign commerce with our
insignificant share in the carrying trade which that commerce has
^developed. But while they acknowledge that the disappearance
of our flag was precipitated by the Civil War, and that the revo-
lution in shipbuilding, which immediately followed, found us un-
prepared to meet the new requirements of ocean transportation
-owing to the then undeveloped condition of our iron industries,
they all contend, not only that we should have bought ships in
England, but that we should buy them there now, instead of con-
structing them at home. This method of dealing with the sub-
ject suggests

A Few Queries.

Would our agricultural industries, from which the bulky freight
that requires so many vessels is obtained, furnish it to-day if any
considerable portion of the capital used in their development
had been invested in foreign-built ships?

Would the number of miles of railroad in this country have
increased from 30,635 in 1860 to 52,914 in 1870, and 93,672 in
1880, if any considerable portion of the capital spent here in the
building of those roads had been spent in England in the pur-
chase of ships ?

Was not the development of our railway system a necessary
condition of the development of our agricultural and other indus-
tries from which we derive our foreign commerce ?

Admitting, as it is claimed, that the amount of ocean traffic
which we might have secured by recovering at any cost our mari-
time standing would be about $60,000,000 per annum, can this be
legitimately called a loss when we consider that an application of
cur surplus capital to the building of railroads has raised the
gross earnings of our railway system from $39,456,358 in 1851 to
$615,401,931 in 1880?

Would it have been better for us to buy ships in England whenPEOTECT LABOR.

she had the monopoly of iron, than to develope our steel and iron
industry, for instance—an industry by the growth of which in this
•country the price of the most important material now used in the
construction of ocean steamers has been lowered to such an ex-
tent, that we can now build here the finest vessels at a less cost
than we would have had a few years ago to pay on the Clyde for
inferior ones ?

In short, were it better to have many ships, but little agricul-
ture, few railroad facilities, a limited industry, and little foreign
trade, than to possess, among other advantages, those industries
by means of which we can now acquire ships without paying a
cent for them to foreign countries ?

We do not suppose that the most enthusiastic admirer of the
free-ship theory will claim that we might have to-day a mercantile
marine without having neglected to the amount of its cost the
development of our domestic resources—unless he is ready to
prove that we have made a bad use of our surplus capital, and of
the labor to which it has given employment.

If what we did was all we could do, and if what was done was
good, where is the benefit of searching in the past for a cause of
shame and lamentation ? It is not the past that we must con-
sider, but the present—and the future.

Now, however, we can have ships, and ships we shall have in
spite of Great Britain, built of American iron, as they
should be, for the flag must not cover a deception.

And these ships our government must protect, as England
protects hers, by paying them a fair compensation for carrying the
mails.

To those who claim that we should lose nothing by exchanging
breadstuff's with England for ships, we answer that we should
gain a shipyard besides the ships by constructing them at
home; that it is better for us in every respect to feed, clothe, shelter
and otherwise keep in comfort ten thousand American mechanics
working in American shipyards than to export food or money to
support ten thousand foreigners three thousand miles away; that
we possess all the labor, all the iron, and all the tim-
ber necessary to build a fleet with all the modern improvements,
and that it is our advantageous duty to build it rather than to
purchase it.

With such a marine as we can now readily acquire from our-
selves and easily protect from foreign competition, we shall at
last obtain that

Commercial Independence

which is so necessary to the free, full and beneficial exercise of
our productive forces. We may then ship less cotton to Liver-
pool and carry more cotton cloth to China. We may receive less
iron from Great Britain and send more machinery to Mexico, toPKOTECT LABOR

Brazil, to Australia. This will increase the demand
throughout the country for all hinds of labor, and
especially for the skillful trades that command a
high rate of wages. When those manufactures in which
we can already claim a superiority of some kind are no longer
cried down in foreign markets by British agents, or taxed
for profits by British merchants; when they are shipped
directly and sold abroad at their true price, or ex-
changed for tea, coffee, rubber, dye-woods, raw silk, and the
thousand other materials which we must buy in foreign lands and
have heretofore received indirectly through British agencies:
then we may find that England had good reason to fear the
growth of American industry under a protective tariff, and that
she was knowing and wise in attempting to destroy it in its
infancy.

Whatever progress we shall make in this direction must, how-
ever, come of itself,

By tlie Simple Force of Our Natural Advan-
tages*

greater than the artificial contrivances by which England has
established her commercial supremacy. It is in no respect desira-
ble that we should obtain the command of foreign markets by
reducing the ability of our own people to enjoy the fruits of their
labor. It is certainly not desirable, for instance, that for the mere
sake of competing with Great Britain in Africa or in India, we
should give the African or the Hindoo more than we can spare
after sustaining our population on the higher plane of American
life. Foreign commerce at such a price would
stitute a natio^ml loss9 not a gain; and it were better
to have no surplus at all, if by any possibility this surplus should
prove the means of degrading our industrial classes.

Let us, indeed, bear in mind that there are

Two Kinds of Surplus;

one resulting from abundance; the other from avarice or poverty.

1. By virtue of particular advantages a nation may produce
certain commodities in such abundance that a surplus is left above
requirements. The prevailing standard of remunera-
tion need not be lowered to create such a condition of affairs,
and it may even be raised by the profitable sale abroad of what-
ever can thus be spared at home, or by an exchange with foreignersPROTECT LABOR 11

for products that do not compete with those of any domestic
industry.

2. But in countries less favorably situated capital seeks employ-
ment and profit at the expense of labor; in other words, a
surplus is created by compelling abstinence upon the laborer. In
such countries the production of wealth maybe great, but the con-
sumption of it is small; the toiling millions do not enjoy it; be the
price of their finished work ever so low, their
standard of remuneration is lower.

Thus we export much grain, but we have no empty stomachs
in our farm houses; England exports much cloth, but her mills are
full of ragged operatives.

In the same manner there are

Two Kinds of Cheapness;

one produced naturally by well-paid labor and intelligent industry,
applied to the development of natural wealth, readily accessible;
the other produced artificially by cheap labor, that is made to
compensate the employer for the additional cost resulting from
natural obstacles.

This country possesses the natural means of production to a
far greater extent than England does, and our labor is not
less efficient than hers ; but it is dearer.

Thus we see that when the free trader demands cheap pro-
duction it is very truly cheap labor that he means; not simply
computed in money, as he sometimes endeavors to explain, hut
computed in the necessaries of life, as the inevitable consequence
would be. And when, rising to the height of our most advanced
school of moral philosophers, he invokes the natural law of

The Survival of the Fittest*

he simply demands the triumph of the inferior civilizations of the
Old World over the American civilization.

But America will survive. As the fittest intellectually,
she will decline a brutal challenge; and she will continue working
out her own destiny for the benefit of mankind, by securing to the
millions now settled on her generous soil, and to the millions whom
the pauper labor system of older countries may still drive to her
shores, that standard of Dear Tabor which is the
benefit and glory ^ Modern Progress.APPENDIX.

In confirmation of the facts and arguments presented in the
preceding pages, the undersigned submits tabular and other state-
ments to show the beneficial effects of a protective tariff upon
the manufacturing, mechanical and farming industries of the coun-
try, especially upon work-people in all departments of labor.

INCREASE OF MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY UNDER A PROTECTIVE TARIFF.

The influence of protective legislation upon manufacturing industry is shown
in the enormous increase of manufactures during the two decades from 1860 to
1880 under the tariff acts of 1861 et seq.

As all the census returns of manufactures of the United States in the year
ended May 31, 1880, have not been compiled, I am unable now to submit the
amount of production in any one of the States. The following table, however,
presents the aggregate production in sixteen of the chief manufacturing cities of
the Union, the aggregate exceeding the total value of products of industry in
1860, and wrhich serves to illustrate the vast extension of manufactures during
the last twenty years.

MANUFACTURES IN SIXTEEN CITIES.

Statement showing the Value of Products of Industry, and the Humber of Hands em-
ployed in the Census Years 1860 and 1880; also the pei'centage of Increase during
the Twenty Years, in the following Cities:

Manufacturing

Cities.

New York........

Philadelphia....

Chicago *.......

Brooklyn........

Boston..........

St. Louis*___....

Cincinnati *....

Baltimore.....

Pittsburgh......

San Francisco *...

Newark *,...,....

Cleveland *......

Buffalo *.......*

Milwaukee *......

Louisville *.....

Detroit *.......

I860. 1880. Inc. $ cent, in 20 years
No. of hands. Value of No. of Value of Manu- Popu- lation.
product. hands. product. factures.
90,204 $153,107,369 217,977 $448,209,248 181 50
98,983 135,979,777 173,862 394,591,725 124 50
5,593 13,555,671 77,601 241,045,607 1,678 349
12,758 34,241,520 36,109,825 45,226 169,757,590 395 113
18,726 56,813 +123,366,137 241 73
11,737 27,610,070 39,724 104,383,587 279 118
30,268 46,995,062 52,184 94,869,165 101 58
17,054 21,083,517 55,201 75,621,388 259 56
20,493 26,563,379 19,595,656 36,465 74,241,889 180 217
1,564 26,062 71.613,385 265 311
21,790 27,927,514 29,232 66,234,525 137 90
4,455 6,973,737 21,499 47,352,208 579 264
6,500 10,774,400 16,838 40,003,205 271 92
3,406 6,659,070 19,620 38,955,138 485 155
7,396 14,135,317 6,498,593 16,569 32,381,733 128 82
3,710 15,062 28,303,580 535 155
354,637 $593,810,477 899,935 $1,960,930,050 230 85.7

-&■

Population of the above Cities in 1860, 2,924,392; in 1880, 5,471,597; increase 85.7 per cent.

* Including the manufactures of the respective counties in 1860; the cities only in
1880. The increase in 1880 over 1860 is therefore greater than the above figures indicate.

f This amount includes the manufactures of Charlestown and other towns not a part
of the city of Boston in 1860. The increase is therefore less than 241 per cent.

It will be seen by the above table that the value of manufactures produced in
sixteen of the principal cities of the Union amounted in 1860 to $593,810,477, and
in 1880 to the enormous aggregate of $1,960,930,050; an increase in twenty years
of more than 230 per cent., while during the same period the increase in popu-
lation was only 85.7 per cent 1 It must be borne in mind that there was. an un-■usual increase in the population of some of the cities, as for example: Chicago, 3491
San Francisco, 311; Cleveland, 264; Pittsburgh, 217; Detroit and Milwaukee, 155„
St. Louis, 118; and Brooklyn, 113 per cent.

INCREASE IN THE PRODUCT OF LEADING INDUSTRIES.

As the chief seats of the Iron, Woolen, Cotton, Silk and Glass industries are
usually in localities remote from large cities, the products of their mills in
1880 are not, to any considerable extent, included in the aggregate value of man-
ufactures of the sixteen cities already named, and are therefore presented in the

following table:

Statement showing the Number of Hands Employed and the Value of the following
Industries of the United States in the Census Years 1860 and 1880, with the Per
Centage of Increase during the last Twenty Years:

Principal Industries. Census year 1860. Census year 1880. Per centage of increase in 20 years.
Number of hands. Value of product. Number of hands. Value of product.
Woolen goods Worsted goods Carpets Hosiery Total for wool manufactures. Iron—Pig “ —Blooms “ Rolled ,{ —Forged Steel Total for iron and steel. Glass and Glassware Silk manufactures Cotton Manufactures Boots and shoes gricultuyal implements Paper Ship and boat building Brick and tile 41,360 2,378 6,681 9,103 $61,894,986 3,701,378 7,857,636 7,280,606 86,502 18,803 20,371 28,328 $160,606,721 33,549,942 31,792,892 28,618,727 ....
59,522 80,734,606 154,004 254,563,282 215
15,927 1,746 19,262 1,162 748 20,870,120 . 2,623,178 31,888,705 { 2,030,718} 1,778,240 41,875 2,939 80,133 16,031 89,315,509 3,968,074 136,798,574 66,475,478
38,845 9,016 5,360 122,028 123,026 14,814 10,9’1 9,260 21,409 59,190,961 8,775,155 6,589,171 115,681,774 91,889,298 17,487,960 21,216,802 11,667,661 11,263,147 140,978 23,822 188,ioi 111,152 39,580 24,422 27,013 66,155 296,557,685 21,013,464 34,510,843 210,950,383 166,050,354 63,640,486 55,109,914 36,496,462 32,836,887 401 140 423 82 80.7 292 160 213 191

An examination of the above table shows that the product of two among the
largest industries of the country—the iron and steel and the woolen—amounted
in 1880 to more than 551 million dollars, an increase of 294 per cent, in 20 years.

Including silk manufactures, which increased 423 per cent, in value during the
same period, the aggregate production rose to 586.6 millions in 1880, or four times
that of 1860. During the same period the increase in the population of the coun-
try, through natural growth and unprecedented immigration, was less than 60
per cent. Industries that increase 240 per cent, faster than the population, find-
ing markets for all their products, employing hundreds of thousands of men
and women, and paying them double the wages earned by those engaged in similar
industries in European countries, should not b© lightly regarded by the econo-
mist, the legislator and the patriot.

Before presenting comparative statements of the rates of wages paid in the
United States and in the chief countries of Europe, I submit a table compiled
from the census of 1850 in regard to the

COST OF FARM LABOR IN 1850.

Weekly to a
Daily to a day female do-
Monthly to a farm laborer with mestic with
Sections. hand with board. out board. board.

Average in New England States.................. $13 00 .98 $130

Average in Middle States....................... 9 86 .84 . 98

Average in Western States......................... 11 78 .84 1 09

Average in Southern States........................ 9 74 .75 1 46

Average in Thirty States.......................... 10 89 .83% 124

The daily wages of a carpenter without board, during the same year, averaged
$1.35 in New England, $1.31 in the Middle and $1.42 in the Western States.14

COMPAEATIYE COST OF LABOR.

The following statement shows the average rates of wages, in building and
some other trades, that obtained in 1878 in the‘ principal countries in Europe, as
compared with those paid in the City of New York in the same year. As the rates
in different parts of this country are not uniform, anyone who feels interested in
the subject can compare the figures given in this statement with the price of
labor in or near his place of residence.

Occupations. | Belgium. 1 1 i France. Germany. Italy. Spain. England. Scotland. New York.
Building trades: Bricklayers $6 00 $4 00 $3 60 $3 45 $5 15 $8 12 $9 63 *12 00 to $15 00
Carpenters 5 44 4*25 5 42 4 00 4 18 4 88 8 25 8 12 9 00 to 12 05
G-asfitters 5 40 3 65 3 95 7 25 8 40 10 00 to 14 00
Masons 6 00 4*45 5*66 4 30 4 00 4*80 8 16 8 28 12 00 to 18 00
Painters 4 20 4 15 4 90 3 92 4 60 4 80 7 25 7 16 10 00 to 16 00
Plasterers 5 40 3 80 4 35 7 20 8 10 10 13 10 00 to 15 00
Plumbers.. 6 00 5*50 3 60 3 90 7 75 7 13 12 00 to 18 00
Slaters 4 00 3 90 7 90 8 30 10 00 to 15 00
General trades : Blacksmiths 4 40 3 90 5 45 3 55 3 94 4 65 8 12 7 04 10 00 to 14 00
Bookbinders 3 72 4 85 3 82 3 90 3 60 7 83 6 50 12 00 to 18 00
Brassfounders 4 20 3 20 5 49 7 40 6 90 10 00 to 14 .00
Butchers— 4*50 4 50 5*42 3 85 4 20 7 23 4 75 8 00 to 12 00
Cabinet-makers 4 80 6 00 3 97 4 95 4*20 7 70 8 48 9 00 to 12 00
Coopers i’io 7 00 3 30 4 35 4 95 7 30 6 10 12 00 to 16 00
Coppersmiths 3 85 3 30 3 90 7 40 7 10 12 00 to 16 00
Cutlers 3 85 4*63 4 00 3 90 8 00 6 25 10 00 to 13 00
Horseshoers 3 85 5 40 3 25 3 50 7 20 7 00 12 00 to 18 00
Millwrights 4 00 3 30 4 95 7 50 7 50 10 00 to 15 00
Printers 4 62 4*70 4 80 3 90 7 75 7 52 8 00 to 18 00
Saddlers 4’80 3 85 5 00 3 60 3 90 6 80 6 15 12 00 to 18 00
Sailmakers 4 85 3 30 3 90 7 30 6 33 12 00 to 18 00
Shoemakers 3 30 4*75 3 12 4 32 3*90 7 35 7 35 12 00 to 18 00
Tinsmiths 4*80 3 90 4 40 3 65 3 60 3 90 7 30 6 00 10 00 to 14 00

Wages in Rolling Mills.

Puddlers...............................

Top and Bottom Rollers.................

Rail Mifi Rollers......................

Merchant Mill Rollers..................

Machinists.............................

Engineers..............................

Laborers...............................

Iron Molders.............................

Pattern Makers.........................

Middleboro,

Eng.

,.. $10 50
... 16 05
,.. 2i 05
,.. 12 10
... 8 59
.. 8 47

.. 4 65
.. 6 77
... 7 01

Pennsylvania.
$21 15
27 50
40 00 '
36 83
15 56
15 24
8 58
-11 00
14 69

WAGES IN POTTERIES.

Average weekly wages earned in the potteiies of Staffordshire, England, in
December, 1881, and in Trenton, N. J., February, 1882:

Operatives.

Platemakers.......

Dishmakers.........

Cupmakers..........

Sancermakers.........

Basinmakers..........

Hollowware pressers.
Hollow ware jiggers..

Kilnmen..............

Saggermakers.........

Moldmakers.........

Turners............

Handlers...........

Printers...........

General average..

In England. In United States.

.$ 7 70 $20 30
. 9 62 19 43
. 9 92 19 67
. 7 93 18 58
. 9 66 19 73
. 8 14 17 90
. 11 62 21 89
. 6 86 13 18
. 8 46 19 33
. 10 23 20 79
. 8 00 16 97
. 8 39 16 62
. 6 55 13 56
. $8 69 • $18 50

The above table shows that the average rate of wages paid in the potteries of
Trenton, N. J., is 113 per cent, higher than in Staffordshire, England.WAGES IN SILK FACTORIES.

Hand silk doublers..............

Hand silk spinners..............

Hand silk twisters, men.........

Hand silk twisters, women.......

Soft silk winders, women........

Warpers, women..................

Weavers on hand looms, women,
Weavers of'best novelty ribbons.
Weavers of dress goods.........

Average in
U, S.

,. $5 18

4 87

5 98

. 5 67

. 6 35

. 7 62

8 44
. 15 00

. 12 00

WAGES IN THREAD FACTORIES.

Estimated in
France.
$2 45
2 00
3 42
2 10
2 00

2 40

3 00
9 60
6 00

Tables showing the comparative rates of wages paid in thread factories,
Paisley, Scotland, and in the United States, in 1882:

IN FACTORIES OF J. & P. COATES.

In Paisley. In Pawtucket, U. S. Excess in U.S.

Operatives. Per Week. Per Week. Per Cent.

Spoolers......................... $3 50 $6 59 94

Twister-tenders.................... 2 55 5 69 123

Doffers............................ 1 94 4 37 125

Cleaners........................... 1 52 2 63 73

Peelers............................ 3 52 7 88 124

Winders............................ 2 80 7 25 159

Wrappers and boxers................ 3 04 7 96 162

Dyers............................ 6 32 9 84 56,

Bleachers, men..................... 5 10 11 81 132

Bleachers, women................... 2 43 5 25 116

Mechanics........................ 7 94 13 13 65

Firemen.......................... 5 83 10 66 83

IN FACTORIES OF THE CLARK THREAD CO.

WOMEN.

Spoolers.................

Beelers..................

Cop-winders..............

Twisters.................

Strippers................

Bobbin cleaners..........

MEN.

Carpenters and machinists,

Dyers....................

Bleachers.... ...........

Paisley, Scotland.
Per Week.

$3 50 to $3 75
3 50 to 3 75
3 50 to 3 75
2 25 to 2 50
1 50 to 1 75
1 25 —
7 00 to 7 50
7 00
6 50 '

Newark, N. J.

Per Week.

$7 00 to $9 00
7 50 to 8 50
7 50 to 8 50
5 00 to 6 00

3 00 -------

2 50 ---

16 50 to 18 00

15 00 ---

13 50 ---

DAILY WAGES IN COTTON FACTORIES IN ENGLAND.—HOURS OF WORK, 56 PER WEEK.

In spinning mills at Blackburn.
Spinning master and carders..$l 20 to $2 00

Spinners.................... 1 20 to 1 40

Piercers.................... 46 to 52

Creelers.................... 28 to 34

Bovers........................ 58 to 66

Slubbers and drawers.......... 50 to 54

Grinders.................... 72

Blow-room hands............... 48 to 72

Firemen....................... 64 to 84

In a spinning mill at Oldham.

Mule overlooker............. 1 60

Carder...................... . $1 80

Jobbers................................ 96

Drawers and slubbers................... 72

Intermediate and roving hands 68

Little tenters......................... 36

In an East Lancashire cotton weaving mill.

Weavers, 3 looms............$0 64 to $0 72

Weavers, 4 looms.............. 80 to 96

Weavers, 6 looms............ 1 20 to 1 44

Beamers or warpers............ 64 to 80

Winders....................... 40 to 72

Tacklers or overlookers..... 1 12 to 1 68

WEEKLY WAGES AT

Factory hands.

Dressers, men..........................$6

Cloth inspectors, men................. 5

Cloth pickers, women................... 2

Drawers, women......................... 2

Tenters, men........................... 6

Warp winders, women.................... 3

DUMFERLINE, SCOTLAND.
Factory hands.

32 Warpers, women.........

58 Weavers, women............

67 Weft winders, women.......

67 Joiners, men..............

56 Mechanics.................

16 Engine-keepers and firemen.

WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL LABORERS IN EUROPE.

3 76

4 86

4 14
6 32
8 27

5 82

In vicinity of Birmingham, common farm hands from $3 75 to $4 50 per week;
Sheffield, $4 14 to $4 86, with small cottage; St. Helens, from $4 40 to $5 35; Fal-
mouth, 60 cents per day; North Wales, %2 43 and found, per week; Belfast, per
week $1 92, with beard and lodging; Cork, per day 48 cents; ploughmen 60 cents,
in busy season, 60 to 88 cents. Ordinary agricultural laborers employed by the
Board of Public Works receive $3 60 per week, navvies, also laborers attending16

masons, $3 60; ordinary laborers, $2 88. In Bremen, Germany, agricultural
laborers, 48 cents per day; Munster, 53 cents; Crefeld and Dusseldorf, 48 to 6ft
cents; Bavarian Highlands, 53 cents; Upper Rhine Valley, 41 cents; Lower Rhine
Valley, 31 cents; Lower Highlands, 33 cents; Upper Alsace, 45 cents; Lake Con-
stance and environs, 40 cents; Mannheim, 40 cents in winter and 50 in summer;
Leipsic, 40 cents with food and lodging; Malaga, Spain, 15 to 20 cents per day
with board and lodging. In Sweden, in 1880, highest per day in summer 53.
cents, lowest 21; in winter, highest 27, lowest 18 cents.

WAGES IN IRON SHIPBUILDING ON THE CLYDE AND THE DELAWARE.

Regarding as of great importance the rates of wages paid in the iron shipbuild-
ing works in Glasgow, for the purpose of comparison with the rates paid in sim-
ilar works in the United States, the undersigned visited that city a few years ago-
and made a careful investigation of the subject, subsequently obtaining from the
proprietors of the works in Philadelphia and Wilmington the rates paid by them
respectively. The result of this investigation showed that the mean rate of wages,
in 46 different occupations in the iron ship-building works of J. Elder & Co.,
Glasgow, was $6.08 per week, and in that of Pusey, Jones & Co., Wilmington,;
Del., $11.65—an average increase of 91% per cent, in the latter over the former.;,
also, that the mean rate of wages paid in the shipyard of W. Cramp & Sons,
Philadelphia, in 32 different branches, was $12.32 per week—an increase of 102.
per cent, over the rates paid for similar work in Glasgow.

PROSPERITY UNDER A PROTECTIVE TARIFF.

The following table shows the enormous increase of wealth during the two
decades from 1860 to 1880, under a protective tariff:

INCREASE OF WEALTH, 1860-1880.

Subjects.

Population of the United States,

Value of farms..........................

Wheat produced.................. .bushels

Wheat exported.....................bushels

Corn produced......................bushels

Corn exported......................bushels

Wool produced.......................pounds

Cotton produced................. bales

Oats produced......................bushels

Barley produced....................bushels

Butter exported.....................pounds

Cheese exported.................. .pounds

Petroleum produced.................barrels

Pig iron produced.................net tons

Rails produced....................net tons

Hogs packed...............................

Merchandise imports.....

Merchandise exports.....

Gold and silver produced..
Gold and silver exported..
Gold and silver imported..,

Railroads............................miles

Improved lands/.......................acres

1860.

31,443 321
$3,271,675,426
173,104,924
4,155,153
838,792,742
3,314,305
60,264,913
3,826,086
172,643,185
15,825,898
7,651,224
15,524,830
251,000
919,770
205,038
2,350,822
$353,616,119
$333,676,067
$46,150,000
$66,546,239
$8,550,135
30,635
163,110,720

1880.

50,155,783

$10,197,161,905

498,549,868

153,252,795

1,717,434,543

98,169,877

232,500,000

6,343,269

407,858,999

44,113,495

39,236,658

127,553,907

22,382,509

4,295,414

1,461,837

6,950,451

$667,954,746

$835,638,658

$75,200,000

$17,142,919

$93,034,310

88,237

287,211,845

Increase,
per cent.
60
212
188.
3,603.

103

2,862

283

136

179

413

722

8,817

367

613

196

150

988

188

76-

The following table shows the bank capital and deposits in 1860 and 1880 re-

spectively :

Year.
1860......

1880.... |

All banks.....

National banks,
Other banks...

Capital.

$421,890,095

460,200,000

211,642,320

Deposits.

$253,000,000

1,139,900,000

1,487,488,058

Increase of capital, 59 per c^nt. Increase of deposits, 935 per cent.

This shows that the capital ©f banks and bankers has increased one per cent,
less than the population, but the money of the depositors—that of the people at.
large—has increased fifteen times more than population.

1431Q Street, Washington, D. 0.

EDWARD YOUNG.1

■

:!•;■<

I1III

jpil
111

i m

is!

li?

: | P*4

* W)

■ >' W*

s i ■