Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1891-12-11
SHALL WE TAX HIDES?
SECRETARY RUSK EVIDENTLY HAS A
SPITE AGAINST MASSACHUSETTS.

Secretary Rusk Recommends Duty
Hides to Get Even" with the New Eng
land Shoe Manufacturers-who Would
BE Benefited and who Hurt by 1t.
J. r. Rusk, Harrison's secretary Of
agriculture, was the only one in the
gloomy group around the White House
who betrayed his conviction that ma
tional issues were involved in the late
Massachusetts fight, and he did it by a
silly threat.
The New York Tribune reports his
remarks as follows:
Secretary Rusk declares that the
elections went as he expected, and he
was not at all surprised. The only com
ment he had TO make was that he would
be in favor Of restoring the tariff on
hides, as the Massachusetts shoe manu-
facturers, for whose benefit hides were
put on the free list. had voted with the
Democrats. He believed it good idea
to make them pay more for their hides"
The secretary would punish the shoe
manufacturers for voting IN their own
interests by "taxing hides" Inciden-
tally he has another object in view. Mr..
Rusk never overlOoks the interests Of the
big -Four" in Chicago He employs
every opportunity to say good word
for this group of millionaires, although
he processes TO be the farmers friend.
In 1890 the New York Tribune showed
clearly how tariff on hides would OBJ
crate. 1t said, lit can hardly be be-
lieved that the home purchaser will be
benefited by the imposition Of a duty
which would apparently help nobody so
much as the rich combination Of beef
packers in Chicago"
And when the house was debating the
grant Of a tariff bonus to these packers
by putting duty on hides, Colonel
Bayne, Republican member Of the
ways and means committee, said, as
matter Of fact, the business of hides is
largely in the hands Of such men as Phil
Armour Zone Of the Big FourD who can
cOnsign to a tannery a hundred or sew
eral hundred hides at once, and it is they
who will be benefited by this duty
rather than the farmer, who has only
one or two hides to sell at time"
The big Four" would join the COM
pany Of those who now have a tariff
bonus were hides made dutiabIe.
Equally certain would be the disas-
trous effects of a duty on hides upon
the tanhing and the boot and shoe in
dustries. Said Mr.. Thomas +. Proctor,
Of the Proctor Leather company, in
communication to the Boston Post:
'"The only effect it would have would
be to increase the price of shoes and cur
tail our foreign trade in hides. There is
no surer way, let me tell you, to make
New England solidly and reliably Dem
ocratic than to put tax on hides as
contemplated. Let me show you how it
would work The trade affected would
he that with the Argentine Republic and
Brazil.
The leather made from American
hides is used in the uppers of the shoe
Very little, | may say no, sole leather is
made from American hides. To put
tax on the hides brought from South
America, if it had any effect at all on
shoes made for our home trade would be
to increase their price. On the other
hand, it would materially hurt the bust
ness of our tanners Very much Of the
leather imported from South America is
tanned here and shipped to England.
Now, if this import is taxed, it will
make it impossible for our tanners to
compete with those of Canada, who get
their hides from the same source, with
out tax and with the advantage of I'M
limited hemlock bark. Canadian tan
ners would derive the benefit; our own
tanners would suffer the loss under such
a tax.
with rs hides are an incidental
product. If the hide was not sold at all
there would be just as many cattle
raised as there are now, as the beef and
tallow form the main product. We do
not, however, export any of our own
hides. OF the sole leather tanned in
this country fully one-fourth is sent
away. To place tax on the leather,
that trade would be wholly ruined, as
Canada, where its importation is free,
would absorb it ALL"
BY the imposition of duty on silver
lead ore imported from Mexico, by the
Mckinley tariff our smelling industry
was injured and that of Mexico built
up and encouraged. Do we want to
repeat this foolish policy in the case of
our now tlourishing and prosperous tan
ling industry?