The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-05-18
A TyprcALLY SELFISH DEMAND.

| TfPICALLi SELFISH DEMAND.
| The protected manufacturers want for
themselves alone all the assistance which
the government has been in the habit OF
giving to home industries under the policy
Of protection They are not willing that
the producer Of the raw material should
enjoy any division Of the spols They
want to buy in the cheapest market but
object to allowing any other class Of clti-
zens TO have that privilege.
This typical protection selnshness and
narrowness of view aud their expression
again In strong and practically unani-
nous demand, just at this time, by the
leather and shoe industries of New En-
gland for the repeal OF that portion Of the
tariff schedule which places duty OF Is
per cent ad valorem on the importation OF
hides-a protection OF the homo article, of
course, TO that extent. The Boston Globe
voices this demand as follows;
Win no unc rtain souul the great leather
and shoe indus,ries OF New England are
yoicmg heir penumeut- on the hide situation.
Briefly set forth the condition OF AFFAIRS ia
this A duty OF IS per cert Bi vAlurem On im-
ported hides lmits the available supply from
abroad. while nc the SAME time domestic pro-
ductiOu happens to be curuilCd. This cum-
hlnailon OF adverse influences has caused
prices OF the hides needed ty tanners 10 rise
to the highest May hgures on record thernby
Increasing the cost Of leather nnd Conga-
quentiy the value OF all manufactures OF
leather. Including The principal products, boots
and shoes To obtain ths enhanced value
from The coItumti W. extremely difficult. and
the profit for tanners ana manufacturers is
small whereas that OF the hide incu ls dis
proportiopataly large.
II viii be seen that hides are costing
more than formerly In consequence ot this
tarlR tax, reinforced by "eurtailmenr'
OF the home supply. Possibly the manu-
facturcrs OF leather and it's principal pro-
ducts would not "kick' II they could "ob-
tain this enhanced value from the con
sumner" So long as the helpless consum-
er's burdens can be piled higher 1t IS all
right to allow the producer Of the raw ma
terial some degree OF protection along
with the manufacturer. but the moment
the profit for tho manufacturer is curtaled,
he fights vigorously for monopoly OF
benefits for himself and a monopoly OF
burdens for tho other fellow This may
be natural as we find human nature in
this selfish age, but the "other fellow
Just as naturally demands some considera-
ton for his interests.
Tho fayorite argument by the leather
aud boot and shoe manufacturers against
a duty on hides is that the packeres get
the benefit OF 1t ana not the cattle ralsers.
and that tho general effect is to increase
tho cost to the consumers, In the present
instance, It seems, the objection can not
be urged tilst the consumer is paying the
difference but rather that the hide men
are getting better prices while the manu-
tacturers are bearing the loss.
But why are tho hide men, either pack
ers or cattle raisers, not as much entitled
to government bonus as the manutac-
turers? Nor is It true that the big pack
cries get all the beneat OF an Increased
price on hides. Incidentally and indeed.
to large extent. the cattle men derive A
goodly portion OF profit from any rise IN
the value OF hides. The West has as much
right TO Insist, therefore that the dtry
shall remain as New England has to de-
mand that II shall be removed
Protection is wrong In theory and hurt
full In practice to the great mass Of the
people. but IL the shoe manufacturer IL
to get a bonus from the government the
hide man is entitled to equal protection.
II one industry is to be protected all
should be, Tho wider the principle is ox-
tended or applied, OF course, the less will
the people feel one of the most unjust re-
suits of PROFESSIONALS Discrimination in
favor of restricted class.