Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1909-06-25

our foreign competitors and notvlthr
standing that we pay by far the high
est daily and hourly wages paid in
any country. If the American people
want to continue to wear the best and
cheapest shoes on earth, they must
see that their senators and represent
atives vote for free hides and free
leather. There is no other road to
cheap footwear.
About all that we can hope to get
from the present congress is free
hides and reduced duties on leather.
Why congress hesitates to give us
free hides l can not understand, IN
less our senators and representatives
have ceased to think of the welfare OF
our 100000 million of consumers
and are concerned only about the few
producers who constitute our great
trusts. The facts and arguments are
all against taxed hides. There is no
sound reason, under any theory Of pro
| lection, for continuing the burden
some and monopoly producing duty on
hides. Not only does the duty not pro
tect the cattle raiser but, if it did,
there are so few Of them, compare
lively, that they should not be per-
mitted to dictate the prices of hides,
leather and shoes to all Of our citizens
According to the census Of 1890
there were 1889 stock raisers and
| 5.4S3,61S farmers in this country.
That is the stock raisers constitute
less than one per cent Of our farming
population, and only about one-ffth
of one per cent of our total popula-
ton. Thus, assuming that the stock
raisers are protected by the duty on
hides, we see that for each stock rails
er thus protected 500 consumers must
pay higher prices for shoes. This
ration is not a proper one, even from
the standpoint Of a protectionist.
But even this is much too high, accord
ing to Boyd's City Dispatch. This
great agency for circular advertising
said, on May 10, that it could find
only $4,000 names Of persons wEo
could fairly be called stock or cattle
raisers. On the assumption that the
cattle raiser is protected, then, 800
consumers Of. shoes are being taxed
| for the benefit of one stock raiser.
As our grazing lands are growing
less and less each year and as We now
have to import one-third of the hides
consumed, we must either increase
the taxes on the masses for the bene-
4 fit of an almost insignificant few or
see this few decline. No civilized
country can raise enough cattle to
/ furnish hides and leather for dOmes-
tic use. Adequate grazing lands do
not exist in highly populated and civ
| ilized countries. A tax on hides in
this country therefore, necessarily
means a tax on footwear for S7,OOO,-
900 of people. 1t can never mean
anything else.
il It is a mistake however to assume
that the cattle raisers benefit appre-
ciably by the duty on hides. Both
the facts and the logic Of conditions
are against such an assumption.
i In 1905 and 1906 hides were selling
above Is cents when cattle were be-
low 6 cents, while in 1902 hides were
selling at Is cents when cattle were
!, selling at S1a cents. In 1906 hides
were selling at 1872 cents when cat
! tie were selling at SIS eeents, while
4 in 1908 hides were selling ct 911s cents
J when cattle were selling at ~ cents
|, From April 1908 to April 1909, the
price of cattle declined 2 per cent
u while the p rice of hides advanced Al
I per cent.
4 These fguress disprove the claims
i of the beef packers that the cattle
! raisers are protected by the duty or
II hides. The Wall Street Journal OF
ii April 20, 1909, quotes an official o.
/ Swift & Co. as follows:
t "Any reduction in the hide trait
$ would iniure the farmer, because tn
s packers do business on so close mar
: gin that cheaper hides would mean
o slightly smaller return per pound t
ri the farmer for beef on the hoof."
Isn't this cleari Isn't it beautiful
si-this solicitude of the packers TO
9 the farmers? The packers want tn
9 hide duty retained so that they vii
Z have to paw higher prices for cattle
! How they do love the farmer!
n As a matter of logic as well as o
! fact, the beef packers pay as little
Al possible for cattle and get as niue
!. as possible for hides. The price Q
J cattle depends mainly upon the d.
: mand for beef, and price of hides d.
W ponds mainly upon the demand fC
= leather. Hides, being an incidenta
or by product of the butchering bu'
mess and cattle being slaughtere
y primarily for beef, it is absurd
suppose that a duty on hides will mi
ct terialy change the prices paid II
as cattle. We may be certain that Il
he packers would favor free hides if the
a. thought that free hides would appr
in ciably lower the price Of cattle.
ct The cattle raisers get nothing
ne next to nothing from the duty
hides and leather. They are, howe
at er, by these duties, compelled to ps
or ~ otor;olly b;ohar nricae for shoe