The Kinsley graphic. [volume] (Kinsley, Kan.) 1890-1940, 1891-06-26
HOG AND HukBUo.


sToEEInIey's Duties ON Hogs and Hog Meat
a Specimen Attempt 90 Fool the Farmer
Some Cold Figures or Exports and I'm
ports
Nothing illustrates better than the
bare-faced hypocrisy OF McKinley's aI-
tempt to protect the farmers than his
duties on hogs and hog product Our
great pork packing centeFs slaughtered
and marketed Is. 9O6, 6T1 hogs in $780,
not to mention the vast numbers
slaughtered on the farm for family con-
sumption. In addition 81, GOO hogs were
exported
Notwithstanding these vast figures
Mckinley had the gall to increase the
duty on hogs IN order to make the
former fancy that he too was getting
his portion in the great protection hum
bug. In the tables compiled for the
use of the senator's in the tariff debate
a year ago by an expert of the United
States treasury department, the imports
of hogs for 1889 were given at just
1,45S head for 1889, valued at
s., 40 so, or 81. % per head Must have
been poor shoats! The old duty on
hogs was 20 per cent ad valOrem- Nc
kinley changed this to Sl.5O per head,
which would amount to over 45 per
cent And now our farmers have I'M
rivaled possession of the home market,
no longer Threatened with ruin by that
flood of poor shoats worth 50. IS apiece!
In the same generous spirit the good
Mckinley dealt with bacon, hams, pork
and lard. The duty of 2 cents a pound
on bacon and hams was advanced to 5
cents The imports of the two kinds of
meat in 1889 were 3T2, $50 pounds, worth
S45. 500. or very near II cents per pound.
On the other hand, our own exports of
bacon were valued at = cents, and those
of hams at 1913 cents per pOund-shOw-
ing that the small quantity imported
was in no way in competition with the
domestic article. This imported meat
was brought in for a few of our foreign
citizens, who are fond of cherishing the
memory of the old country by eating
an occasional slice of Westphalian ham,
or other famous brand.
But what are these trifiing imports
compared with our enormous exports
| last year, amounting to 5S1, 900, 900
! pounds of bacon, worth $50, $50, 600, and
/ 76, OOO 600 pounds of hams, worth 81,
! 900, 600? To make the contrast between
exports and imports all the more stril5-
/ ing, we export =, $50 pounds of bacon
and hams for every pound of the for
eign product brought into the country.
If Mckinley succeeds in driving away
that one pound, does any farmer
! imagine that keeping this one pound
out of the precious home market will
increase the price of the $3.50 pounds?
Even the treasury expert does not
seem to have been able to find any fig
ures for pork imported; but all the
same Mckinley dumped in pork along
with beef and mutton and doubled the
duty, making it , cents per pound The
total imports of these three products in
1889 were valued at S14, $50; and Oul
exports of fresh pork last year were
valued at $4,000 and those of picked
pork at 81, $50, 900.
Mckinley found the duty on lard 8
cents a pound and the imports for 1885
1,O73 pounds, worth SSS. At that point
he drew the line; even Mckinley could
not carry the farmers tariff hum bug
further, and the duty was left at . cents
AS we exported last year All, 900, OOC
pounds of lard, valued at S33, 100, OOO
our farmers need not complain of the
competition of SSs worth.
And thus has tho great American
humbug dealt with the great American
hog.