New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-07-11
REMOVING DUTIES ON SHOES
Writer Thinks Putting Them on Free
List Unjust to American Makers.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: Chairman Underwood OF the House
Committee on Ways and Means In his re-
cent address TO Tammany said: I'VE have
sent to a Republican Senate free list
bill removing the prohibitive duty on many
Of the necessities Of life, giving 20 the peo-
pie I'm need and In want free bread ana
free meat and free shoes"
How sad that free" silver could not also
have been appended to this demagogic APP
peal to ignorance! That little word of
four letters alone was worth FIVE hundred
thousand votes to Bryan. What could
! there possibly be but demagogic buncombe
In talking of "prohibitive duty on the
necessities of life" in connection with bread
and meat when We raised more than $780,
O00O00 worth OF each in this country last
year above our needs? What was prohib-
tied? If bread is to be made free at
whose expense?
Why not some free" cotton cloth, now
bearing duty at from % to 40 Fer cent, or
free" cotton carpet, now bearing duty OF
60 per cent. or free" cotton gloves, bear
ing the same rate? The why not Is
probably to he found in the fact that
Chairman Underwood represents Alabama
and Brantley is from Georgia, Hull from
Tennessee James from Kentucky. kitchin
from North Carolina and Shackle, ord from
Missouri, these being among Underwood
colleagues on the Democratic Ways and
Means Committee which framed the free
list bill
AS for free shoes" all that his free list
bill could possibly accomplish would be 10
divide up the American market with Ger
man, French and English manufacturers
Of shoes without the least PROBABILITY OF
saving a solitary cent to the people III
need and in want" over whom his heart so
yearns The proposition to place calfskin
shoes (already bearing a duty OF only ~
per cent? on the free list is one OF the most
inexcusable features OF this crude and
laundering bill. All that can possibly he
ACCOMPLISHED will be, as above indicated,
a division Of the American market for the
benefit of foreign shoemakers, whose cheap
wages alone enable their employers 10 COM
pete Government reports have shown that
the actual labor cost OF making a certain
medium grade shoe In this country was
$40 for one hundred pairs The total laoor
cost of making the same shoe IN England
is S27: In France, SO; In Germany Gl-an
average of less than half of American
wages.
one days work will buy better pair OF
shoes I'm the United States han II VIII
anywhere else in the world by more than
30 per cent The significance OF that state
nent. which will bear the severest test
should be pondered briefly by the hasty
snapshot Ways and Means Committee
which is our present prime source Of hus-
ness legislation in the House. That state
ment includes and involves high comph-
ment TO American shoe manufacturing as an
Industry. IL shows that the industry as a
whole has given to the American consumer
good service at the cheapest possible rates.
There is no duty on the whole tariff list
that the American consumer could pay
with any better grace than the present 10"
duty on calfskin shoes.
The English and German shoes which are
even now being imported paying the 10
per cent duty. cannot be delivered TO the
consumer cent cheaper, or even as cheap
". as the American shoe. They cost more
in fact. but a store handling them can use
the imported" idea as talking point In
advertising them, and thereby attract at
tention.
II is to be noted I'm this connection that
the duty on shoes was reduced two years
ago from % per cent to 10 per cent on
calfskin shoes and 10 per cent on Kid
shoes Any desire for consistency or fair
ness or justice to the industry would have
inspired the committee to let these low
duties alone. Had that been done OF course
Il would have been impossible to have
rounded out that beautiful period-"giv-
ing TO the people in need and in want free
bread and free meat and free shoes" 1t
is not surprising that the business world
trembles when crowd of country lawyers
from the back counties of Missouri and
Kentucky and Alabama and Georgia have
the power to make business laws for the
nation w. c. TAYLOR.
Boston, July 7, 1911.