Morning journal and courier., 1883-07-13
Friday, July 13. 1883.

THE ATTACK ON AMERICAN BEEF. The action of the British House of Con- mons in passing resolution prohibiting the importation of live cattle from countries whose preventive laws do not afford reasona- ble security against the extension of disease in cattle is direct blow at the cattle trade of this country. An English cattle dealer in New York explains the situation as follows : This movement is largely political one. It is part of the scheme of the Conservative party to cater to the interests of the farmers by protecting them against American compe- tition. The cattle prohibition in England and the pork prohibition in Germany are ex- actly of the same nature. Disease in the meat is the assigned motive protection to home industry the real motive Henry Chaplin, the member of Parliament who in- troduced the prohibitory resolution, is a very wealthy raiser of cattle, nd his inter ests in shutting out competition are apparent. He is very bitter against everything Ameri- can, and is glad to prevent the importation of American products. On the other hand, the government, in the hands of the Liberals. is in favor of opening the door wide for for
 
 profit by cheap food.
 The exportation of American cattle to Great Britain began about six years ago. and has reached large proportions. During the last year for which the figures are available the United States exported to Eng land 61,s76 head of cattle, valued at SC, 327, 7sO, and to Scotland 6,132 head, VQlUa1 of &R99 Tha kako to all countries amounted to 1o8, no head, valued at $7, 800, PIT. If the English quar- antine against American cattle is strictly maintained this great trade will be lost and it is feared also that the prohibition will in jure the export trade in fresh beef, which is also very large. During the year ending June 30, 1881, our total exportations of fresh at $6, 768, 1882; of which 49, ,632, s4s pounds, valued at $4, 752, 514, were shipped to Eng land, and 15, 700, ,093 pounds, valued at $1,- 576, ,935, to Scotland. Possibly, however, the British consumer may not be prejudiced against meat from this country, and the pro. hibition of the importation of live cattle may lead to an increased demand for dressed fresh ~0o-" SSOs will not amount to much anyway, for as it does not include British North America the Canadians can, as they have hitherto done, buy our cattle and send them to England as Canadian stock.
 But whatever the result of the action of the House of Commons itsspirit remains the same. This spirit was indicated by Mr. Chaplin, who said in the course of his re- marks that one of the best means of insur- ing meat supply was to encourage home production. It was also shown by the action of the Hoase in voting down a proposition for an investigation to ascertain whether the assumption of disease on which the resolution was based had or had not any foundation in fact. Mir. Mundella, member for Sheffield, pointed out that te prohibit the importation of live cattle would cause enormous loss to the consumer. MT. Mundella was right. If the landholders of England succeed in their attempt to keep American beef out of Eng. land the success will cost the laboring classes of that country great deal of money.