Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 36, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 September 1892 — PECK PUNCTURED. [ARTICLE]

PECK PUNCTURED.

HIB BOOMERANG REPORT ON WAGES. “Preconceived Theories.” Grave Mlseon-’ •options, Childish Credulity, Fallaolous Reasoning and IBoflesl Conclusions— Protected Manufacturers’ Statistics Used to Prove' What Democrats Neither AftLrm nor Deny. Absurdities ol Peck’s Report. What is this report of Labor Commissioner Charles F. Peck of New York which President Harrison Is quoting, and about which the Bepublicans are making as much fuss as if it were the only really valuable piece of campaign material that they have gotten hold of this year? 1. What did Mr. Peck attempt to show? 2. What did he think ■would show this? 3. How did he obtain the required information? 4. What figures or facts did he obtain? 5. What do and do not these figures prove? 1. Mr. Peek attempted to show “the effect of the tariff on labor and wages, in order that voters might know whether a “protective tariff" or a “tariff for revenue only” is to be preferred. 2. He evidently assumed and thought that increased production and earnings would show that the effects of the high protective tariff act of 1890 was beneficial to labor. This was a vioigct assumption op the part of Jfoolr, fthd is not creditable to him as a statistician, a logician or a Democrat. There might be a dozen different causes for either high or low production or earnings, the most important of which might h&ve no connection directly or indirectly with IgT'ffs. bountiful rains and favorable wealhef in 1891 produced good crops here when there was a scarcity g,broad. This caused, unusual returns for ciir crops an I a boom in business in no way due to any tariff act. The low price of cotton made cotton mills prosperous, and made more hours, days, and nights ’ work for spinners, weavers, etc. Such causes as these may, and probably do, account for most of the increased production and earnings—which are by no means tynonomous with increased wages and may mean more work for more pay, the rate of wages being the same or even lower, but Mr. Peek sees nothing except the tariff in all this. He had a “preconceived theory” which makes the tariff responsible for prosperity or depression in business; and though ho pretends (o be a Democrat, yet it is evident that he is neither a Democrat nor does he understand Democratic doctrine on the tariff question. Democrats do not claim (as his report assumes) that “protection” will entirely prevent increased production and earnings or that it will raise or lower nominal wages. They simply claim that it has little or nothing to do with high or low wages, but that it does have much to do with the amount of goods that can be purchased with wages. But on this most important phase of the subject Mr. Peck is silent—except that he mentions the omission in a manner that-would Indicate that it is comparatively unimportant. That his “preconceived theories” were in favor of “protection” is obvious from his statement in the New York Tribune of Sept. 3, in which he says: “I see that protection is a goed thing for the manufacturers, and I know also that the manufacturers would not pay higher prices for their labor if it were not for the unions. By means of protection labor is able to enlorce the demands that it makes upon the manufacturers. ” Of course there is but little connection—except in the minds of Mr. Peck and other protectionists—between a duty on manufactured goods and wages. This report that has “knocked the Chicago platform silly” and “raised tho hopes of the Republicans 10 per cent.” is then but the halffledged and illogical conception of a protectionist. In the name of Democracy it seeks to prove or disprove the Republican claim that prosperity is impossible without “protection,” whereas Democrats do not deny that in a country like this—the biggest free trade country in the world when territory is considered ■ —considerable prosperity may accompany even McKinley protection. 3. Notice, now, how Mr. Peck went to work to obtain the data which was to settle this tariff discussion. “Some 8,000 blanks,” he says, “were addressed and mailed to as many separate establishments throughout the State.” A circular letter informed the manufacturers that “the information received would be used only in a general way, so that the business of any individual firms would not be recognized. ” Thus guaranteed against detection, 6.000 of these protected manufacturers and zealous Republicans did, their duty to their country and themselves by fixing the figures which should leave no doubt as to the effects of McKinleyism, and sent them to Mr. Peck, the gentleman who possesses a medal for his ability to display figures, and who deserves one for nis methods of collecting them. But what of the 2,000 who did not reply to Peck’s circular, “How do you do, beneficiaries of McKinley?” Why did they not reply? Could they not make figures expressive of their gratitude to McKinley, or did they not have faith in Peck, and believe that he would keep his'promise to shield them from exposure by withholding all names from the public? It would b,e interesting to learn why they did not reply, and what their replies would have been. But perhaps they would havo spoiled the report lor Republican purposes, in which case this campaign would have been tame and uninteresting. Credulous Mr. Peck! He has the same implicit confidence in the unverified figures of these interested manufacturers that the American Economist had when it obtained, by the same methods, its list of twenty-eight McKinley wage advances. But unfortnnately for it, the Economist gave names and locations so that an investigation wa3 possible. The Reform Club ct once got the facts in each case and proved that there had been far more wage reductions in those mills than advances, and that instead of supplying reliable information the manufacturers Economist to a collection of faiseuOo<&. | Senator Aldrich is another oVer-cred-filcu* tPoioclionist statistician. When he wished to annihilate Hon. John DeWitt Warner’s list of “100 tariff trusts” he sent out blanks to protected manufacturers asking them to state whethei or not they Were member pf trusts. Of course, in the fa.. 6 of crlnuu&l statutes and publio opinion, tLe manufacturers strenuously denied that they were in a trust—in many cases where they Vcre dodging from one State to lEaother, under aliases, to escape prosecution, or Where the courts had declared that they had a trust. But Aldrich paraded their denials in the Congressional Record, and apparently believes these millionaire . monopolists incapable of coloring facts. As the New York World puts it, Mr. Peck’s report was made, like the McKinley tariff law, by the manufacturers —by the people who expect to reap the benefits. They first prepared the bill, and are now reporting on its effect in the State of New York. In aid of this pretty scheme Mr. Peck refusee to make public the letters on which he bases his assertion. 4. Mr, Peek’s figures show a net increase <o? production of $31,315,130, and of wages of $6,377,935 in 1891 -over 1890—523.11 to each of the 285,990 oat-

ployes, or $43.96 to each employe in the 51 trades showing increased wages, there being 89,717 instances of individual increases. 5. Supposing that these statistics are correct, they show that from some cause, or causes, perhaps good crops, or it may be, increased prices for manufactured goods, the value of manufactured products has increased $31,000,000, about one-lifth of which has gone to labor, probably work done, and four-fifths rests snugly in the pookets of protected manufacturers. That Mr. Peck should jump at the conclusion that this increase in earnings meant increased rates of wages, and that these were due to a tariff law, is unbecoming to him as a statistician and inconsistent with his past records. In 1838, 1889, and 1890 he attributed Wage increases to labor organizations, strikes, and national prosperity. These statistics also oontradict those of the Senate Committee—obtained with considerable care—whioh show that wages have advanced somewhat in fifteen, unprotected industries, but have fallen slightly in fifteen highly protected industries. In many industries the statistics appear to be entirely inconsistent with previous and with contemporaneous statistics and to depend largely upon the elasticity of the consciences of the makers. Thus the average yearly wages in the agricultural implements industry for 1890 is $654,80 Tn Jfew York gnd $419.10 in a difference greater than usually exists between wages in this and in European countries —and yet Ihcse two States have the 8a me tariff law. In the second industry mentioned (arms and ammunition) the average yearly wages in 1390 ~wef& $561.45 in MaoSaehCSettS And $492.42 in New York, ' The third (artificial teeth) wages of $554.48 in Massachusetts and $192 in New York, but notwithstanding this tremendous differepce the h'gh-priosd labor of Massachusetts competes with the pauper labor of New York. But by 1891 wages in this industry had increased to $254,45 — that is, from about 65 to 80 cents a day. Analysis of othei industries shows the same glaring inconsistencies and demonstrates the utter worthlessness of such statistics, except for Republican campaign purposes. But there are, as Mr. J. Schoenhof had shown, important and significant omissions in Peck’s list of protected industries. Three of these are the highly protected and exceedingly important industries of cotton goods, hats and caps, etc., and iron and steel products. In these, both the number of employes and their annual earnings had declined heavily from 1870 to 1880. Here are the census tables (in thousands): 1870. 1880. No. of No. of Wages. hands. Wages, hands. Cott on goods *2,626 6,144 $2,218 6,900 Hats, caps, etc... 2,630 6,870 - 2,155 6,213 Iron and steel products 9,900 18,684 4,991 13,567 Totals *15,160 33.689 9.364 28,680 The average per hand employed is as follows: 1870. 1880. Dee. Cotton goods $287 $224 *63 Hats, enpts, eto 446 419 33 Iron and steel products 523 870 155 Thehicrease in the value of the products is no greater, in fact less, than the United States statistics would indicate. If space would permit* many other surface inconsistencies and incongruities could be pointed out, but the one thing most desired by critics is the names and locations of firms where wage increases have occurred. Lot these bo given and the falsity of the whole list will soon be exposed, for the alleged advances are contrary to the experience and knowledge of the employes. Mr. Peck invites the closest scrutiny- of the figures in his office, but he deolares he will permit no one to see tho names attached. Hence it is probabiethat his tables will be quoted by Republicans until the November elections. They may give Republicans something to talk about and to buoy up their hopes, but, as individual experiences are that it is more difficult to earn a living now than before 1890, this crude and garbled report of Mr. Peck is likely to prove a failure as a vote getter for the Republicans.