| OCCUPATION. | RHODE ISLAND. | |
| 1869. | 1874. | |
| Carding: | ||
| Overseer, | $17 00 | $17 00 |
| Picker-tenders, | 7 80 | 7 72 |
| Railway-tenders, | 3 50 | [B]4 47 |
| Drawing-frame tenders, | 5 00 | [C]5 40 |
| Speeder-tenders, | 6 12 | [C]7 48 |
| Picker-boy, | 6 25 | [A]4 03 |
| Grinders, | 9 08 | 9 10 |
| Strippers, | 7 26 | 7 50 |
| Spinning: | ||
| Overseer, | 15 60 | 17 69 |
| Mule-spinners, | 9 50 | 10 16 |
| Mule-backside piecers, | 2 85 | [A]2 52 |
| Frame-spinners, | 5 00 | [B]3 70 |
| Dressing: | ||
| Overseer, | 13 75 | 14 80 |
| Second hand, | 9 00 | 11 83 |
| Spoolers, | 5 00 | [C]4 32 |
| Warpers, | 5 75 | [C]6 98 |
| Drawers and twisters, | 5 00 | |
| Dressers, | 11 25 | 13 11 |
| Weaving: | ||
| Overseer, | 18 33 | 18 00 |
| Weavers, | 8 00 | [C]7 91 |
| Drawing-in hands, | 7 50 | [C]7 25 |
| Repair-shop, engine-room, etc.: | ||
| Foreman, | 18 00 | 15 79 |
| Wood-workers, | 15 00 | 13 58 |
| Iron-workers, | 13 16 | 13 68 |
| Engineer, | 18 00 | 13 71 |
| Laborers, | 9 33 | 8 59 |
| Overseer in cloth-room, | 15 00 | 12 42 |
It will appear, therefore, from an examination of the tables that the average weekly wages in Rhode Island cotton-mills (which fairly represent those of the rest of the country) are in most cases from a third to nearly double those paid in Manchester. But it will also be observed that, whereas English wages appear to have increased steadily in every grade, the American rates show a decided tendency downwards. The highest skilled American labor holds its own with difficulty, but in the lower grades cheaper labor has been extensively employed since 1869. Dr. Young’s explanation must also be borne in mind in reading these tables—viz., that the labor is frequently piece-work. In some instances the English operatives also employ their own helpers.
But do these figures really represent the present rate of wages? Doubtless the average given is a fair one. But any one whose attention was directed to the strike at the Lonsdale Mills, R. I., January, 1875, must have noticed that wages are in reality much lower than here given. Into the merits of that controversy we do not enter—we wish merely to arrive at the figures. The company would appear to have done everything they could for the comfort and improvement of the condition of their hands, and the reduction complained of probably could not be avoided in the then depressed state of the market. The special correspondent of the New York Herald of that date gives the statement of the superintendent, who said that the weavers before the reduction were receiving fifty cents per cut (wide goods), and with the reduction of 10 per cent. the price paid would be forty-five cents per cut; or, in other words, they would earn about $1 a day. Taking the statements
of the operatives, it was claimed that many of the men were making only ninety-six cents a day before the strike, and the women sixty-five cents. Those figures, therefore, in the case of one of the largest companies, represent labor as already reduced below English rates. This strike also afforded an illustration of the statement, made in the beginning of this article, of the instant ebb and flow of labor, as well as capital, which now characterizes industry in the United States. The operatives were about half English and half Irish (the overseers alone being American), and the first movement of those who had enough money to do so was to return to England or Ireland.
Notwithstanding the readiness of operatives to strike the moment the opportunity offers—a readiness perfectly well known and appreciated by their employers—and notwithstanding also, it may be said, the determination of employers to regulate wages by the laws of trade, it is nevertheless one of the most noble and encouraging features of the industrial pursuits of this age that the employers in many instances—and those generally the chief—show that they intend that their minds shall not be diverted from the purpose of improving the condition of their workmen, both mentally and materially. It is well that the mild voice of Christian charity should still be able to make itself heard in the midst of this whir of iron machinery.
In the condition of no kind of labor does the United States compare more favorably with England and the Continent of Europe than in agriculture. Here the respective wages paid hardly admit of comparison. But it is not to be lost
sight of that, wretched as the condition of the English agricultural laborer may appear to us, his way of viewing things is not ours. The rough, arduous, irregular, exposed labor of the Western backwoodsman, or even farmer, appears to him more terrible than the dull, stated servitude, with its beer in the present and its work-house in the future, that shock our free thought. The report of the delegates of the Agricultural Union was decidedly unfavorable in the case of Canada, where the conditions of labor do not essentially vary from those of the Northwestern States. This question of agricultural labor is, however, too vast a one to be treated of here. Dr. Young’s reports are very valuable, but take, perhaps, the American view of the question too much for granted.[30]