The Penn's Grove record., 1909-05-28
FOR FREE HIDES
A Great Struggle With the Senate
Against the Proposed Duty
A STRONG PROTEST NEEDED

The Payne Bill Struck Off the Duty on
Hides, but Aldrich Plans to Put II
Back at the Demand Of the Beef
Trust-The Farmer Gets No Benefit
From the Hide Duty-The Independ-
ent Tanners and Shoe Manufactur-
ers the Country Over Make a Hard
Fight For Their Industry.
VIII the United States grant a mo-
nopoly Of tanning leather to the beef
packers at Chicago, in addition to that
which they have already fin the pro-
duction Of beef? That is the real
question involved in the contest for
free hides now going on at Washing
ton. In this contest there are on the
one side the packing interests and on
the other side all the tanners and shoe
manufacturers of the country as well
as the consumers.
The Packers Gripping the Tanners.
The packers already control the pro-
duction of the greater part Of the hides
produced in the United States. IN
der the present Dingley tariff they
have for twelve years been enabled to
get a high price for their hides by rea-
son of the duty Of Is per cent on the
foreign article, and they have grown
rich during this period, while the tan
ners of leather have had smaller profits
during these years Of prosperity than
--~. INfNr1 - n tito N0ri0d nhnd0
tanners have been looking forward for
a long time to a revision Of the tariff,
in the hope for relief from the injury
they have felt from the duty on hides.
Recently the Chicago packers have en-
gagged largely In the business of tan
ming leather and are now using their
production of hides and others which
they purchase for this purpose. The
Independent tanners must therefore
either abandon the business or get
their supplies of raw material from
foreign countries. But they will be at
a great disadvantage In tanning leather
in competition with the packers. They
do not object to a fair competition,
but they do not want the government
to give the packers a special advan-
tage over them in the shape of a duty
on foreign hides. In short, they do
not want a tanning monopoly to be
created by the tariff for the packers,
thus putting out the people who have
grown up in the business.
All Loss and No Gain For the Farmer.
A pretence Is made that the farmers
and cattle raisers get some benefit
from the increased price Of hides
caused by the Suty. 1t has been
shown conclusively, however, that this
is not the case, as the price of the ami
NAL is based on its beef value and not
on the value of the hide, which is a
very minor part. The packer who
takes off the hide and sells itEi5 the
one who gets the increased price be-
aus of the duty. All intelligent farm
ers know -ery well that the packers
pay little or none of this increased
value of the hide to the farmer when
they buy his cattle. The duty on hides
does, however, add to the cost of the
shoes worn by his family and the
harness used on his horses.
Moreover, the duty on hides does not
cause the production of a single adj
ditional hide in this country, because
cattle are raised for beef and not for
the hide. This country does not and
cannot produce a sufficient quantity of
hides. It is therefore most absurd and
wrong to iujure the leather and shoe
manufacturers Of the country by de-
priving them of the raw material need
ed in their business and to give a
practical monopoly to the big packers.
The Consumers Must Protest.
The Payne bill as passed by the
House of Representatives made hides
free, but it is the Intention of the sem
ate to restore the duty of Is per cent
on hides. A vigorous protest should
be made by the people against this
duty, the only effect of which would
be to foster a monopoly and add to
the cost of a necessity of life.