The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-05-29
STRONG REASONS
 FOR FREE HIDES

Not one of the pending tariff prop osftfons attracts more attention than does the duty on hides. The House voted to abolish the 15 per cent. duty, and the indications are that the reg sular Republicans of the Senate will vote for its retention. This will prob ably result in a compromise at the hands of the conference committee, un1esss the Senate can be compelled by the pressure of public sentiment to accept the action of the House. Lead inr in the agitation for free hides are the leather and footwear industries. The New England Shoe and Leather association has issued a list of rea- sons for free hides as follows:
 A continuance of the Dingley tax will in due time mean a monopoly Of the hide and tanning business in Chi caeo- . Independent tanners.
 It will eventually cause an advance { of 10 cents pair in the price of shoes.
 It will ultimately bring about the z formation of shoe manufacturing monopoly by the beef packers.
 IL will bear most heavily upon the
 mechanic, farmer and 1aboring man, and will Impose serious burden up on the working man with large fam
 The duty increases the cost of the American workingman's footwear by double the amount that it increases the cost of the finer shoes worn by the Moalfhier classes.
 A It will benefit nobody but a trust.
 Under the present arrangement, the beef people must pay for the protec- tion given the beef packers. by the DIngley Bill.
 The United States is the only pro- eressive country that imposes a duty
 It is a fact that this country does not itself produce enough hides to supply the demand.
 @ The duty has made possible the ma nipulatfon Of the price of raw hides to the Injury of the Independent tanner.
 Previous to the enactment of the DinG1ey Bill, hides had been on the free list for a quarter of a century.
 James G. Blaine, nearly 20 years ago, protested: sTt is a great mistake to fake hides from the free list, where < they have been for so many years"
 The tarif on hides has absolutely failed as srevenue-producer.
 Through it's operations, the foreign m1annfacturer can buy his leather in the United States at from 8 to 10 per 0e11t less than our own manufacturers can buy the same leather.
 eiem manufacturer has an emphatic advantage over the American manu- faeturer in competing for the worlds Em0EketA.
 Not even the farmer or the cattle fA1ser derive any beneht from the tax that they did not previously enjoy. Its sole beneficiaries, thus far, have been the Beef Packers.
 The Dfngiey tax on hides already proved a serious interference with the operation of independent tanneries and Gl1oe factories, and has curtailed the pro31ts of legitimate business without in the least benefiting the public.
 The net result of the hides duty has been to increase the revenues of the Beef Packers. protect and encourage the foreign manufacturer and work man and develop the tanning indus tr yof Canada and other foreign coun- tries.
 Free hides will benefit all the people and enable our manufacturers to com- pete with the entire world.
 Very substantial reasons all of themi It is a case of manufacturers and consumers vs. Beef Trust. That Is the issue. Such being the fact, it is extremely probable that the Senate which is very careful of trust inter ests ana which boasts of unsuscep- tibtIity to public sentiment, will dis regard the interests of both manufac- turers and consumers and vote for tax on hides.