The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-04-05
4 POSSIBLE CHECK ON BEEF
PRICES

Cheap beef says Secretary Wilson
10 not the product of high priced land.
The day % cheap grazing land in thia
country has passed. and the infersnce
is plain that With Il there passed the day
Of cheap Ueef so recently a. ten year,
ago vast herds Of cattle were fed and
fattened on the free ranges Of the West
on the public domain. az a minimum oi
cost 10 their owners. The market price
Of the range fed animals fixed the prices
Of the herds % the rest Of the country.
| A large percentage - the beef supply
/ Of to-day Is what is described by Secretary
/ Wilson AZ -the product 90 two raw ma
terials, corn and an animal body In a
raw state. an animal unprepared for
Chicago" There is no reason for belief
that the value ~ the substance produced
by this combination will lie materially
reduced in the years to come.
The changed conditions 81 production
are in part az least responsible for the
striking decline shown IN the export
figures Of recent years. Exports of live
cattle reached their maximum in I9OI.
with 5sSsOO head. Exports in 1875 were
Ss7. 500 head and in 1874 So SS head
Then came a decline to l1S.nSl in 1901
10 Sto.2IO in 1905 and 10 2O7 So, in 1000
shipments of fresh beef fell from 800
OoO. OOO pounds in 1904 90 I2S .OO0 .OOO pounds
in 1900. This decline continues. Cattle
shipments for the first eight months
81 the current fiscal year we're liT,l7S
head. A. compared with ass bead for
the corresponding period last year. and
shipments 81 fresh beef have dropped
from %. 81 ESQ pounds to IS. 5s0.Ios. Com
pared with the hundreds of millions Of
dollars annually paid by the American
people for beef and beef products the
export trade in those articles 10 now n
matter Of very little importance aside
from its influence in trade balances.
Prices would he little or not nc all affected
II exports ceased entirely. From Official
estimates q appears that the ann ual
slaughter in the United states In approx
mstely 1907. 90 head. with a product
amounting tn not far from $500, OOO. 900
pounds. Alongsice such figures as these
our export trade is quite insignificant.
II may be assumed that from one cause
and another thsre will be fiuctuation in
beef prioes. but IL may also be assumed
from known faCts and from probable
conditions that tho tendency Of prices
hereafter will bs upward rather than
downward. There is at present no visible
domestic influence even suggesting a
permanent decline in prices or a check
on further advances. The only ldssi-
hility Of such an influence or such a check
seerns TO lie in n transfer Of cattle To the
free list on our tariff schedules. and the
force Of even that is uncertain. The
argument IN favor Of free cattle IL OF
possible benefit To American consumers
The arguments against Il are n reduction
- national revenue and injury TO Ameri-
c.m interests. The first Of these may
h. dismissed entirely for the reason that
present revenues from that source ara -
small that they are not worth considering
The second involves soms questions 81
fact and some 81 theory
American cattle raisers meet any pro- |
po-ll for free cattle with assertions that !
aIch a proceeding would drive them out
NJ business They are frightened by
hugaboo All the cattle that could be
imported would not b. enough to equal .
D." variation frequently shown in the an
nt1l enumeration ~ the herd of the United '
States The only possible sources ~ ship .
.u"n' 20 this country are oIr neiRhbors 81
M" Western Hemisphere and Australia. ,
shipments and possible shipments from ,
anv South American country other than /
Arxentina are very limited Argentina /
and Australia sell chilled and frozen beef |
md not live cattle. Few live cattle would I
NJ could he brought from those countries.
AMI II ~ even doubtful II the removal ~ ,
'ur present duty ~ - cents a pound on .
fresh i'-..f would result in any large i'm
ppr'1tlon Of that commodity from them
II NAV b. regarded a. certain that not
enough would come To aff,srt materially
any American interest. The notion "
Receipts from Argentina and
australia Is false and foolish.
our imnediat" neighbor-. Canada, Mex
Co CIha and other nearby countries,
r,mlin ~ pp--ibl" sources of supply
From thu-a countries few hundred
hou-iud head wear might be obtained.
md ~ l. in such receipts that possible
~ consumers u found, hut no
menace ~ prusluCcrs The total herd ~
~ The countries within 2.OD miles 81
NV American port would probably exceed
" little Il ~ all one-third the numh.r
Z the cattle in the Unitssh States. Do
iuct from the number annually avail
Idle for slaughter IN all those countries
ne beef required for domestic con-ump-
ion and the surplus that might H. sent
lrrr a. cattle or "a beef would serve
,Ith"r ~ steady prices than To reduce
hem materially. Canada's herd num-
49, bout S.EOO0O and surplus for ex-
,r ~ @ little over 2OO.OOO head Few
4. ,lutu attic would ~ wanted because
4 'h" Iuf'rIur grad" e the stock. Cuha
- urri ~ about 3BOOO and limited
Niiueut- u.gli la made from there
Wu," tho PAYNE tariff was under dis
-~Ipn there we're ASSERTIONS that free
Ii,., would rim some American industries
ud imupvari~f others. but they have
't don" ~ and will not do 80. There
.rlli n" no injury and there might bs
..f..u' 40 i-.-.' wheat. free coal. free lum- :
.'' and tree cattle.
b- rTtde iad PsrpIeSbty SS q Real CsIoueI. !
Fu rHF FnIIuR ~ TVS SUN--Stg. Having
fu,n r.. last few dAy received an ApT,oin tment
trr ,s.'rrnor Wilson 81 Kentucky a. q real
pp'uy' ~ lat stat" and hcinG less familiar with
boz p-.'r. -iun ~ arm, than ~ poesy. I ask The