Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-10-22

/
The American Economist calls a
halt in a similar attempt to deceive by
| the New York Sun. The Economist
refers TO comparisons of meat prices
as absurd saying:
"They presuppose that American
packers are selling beef in London at
20 cents a pound and paying oversee
freight and refrigerating charges
when they can sell the same beef in
New York for 80 cents a pound. There
being shortage of beef in this coun-
try. is it likely that American packers
are supplying the English market
with beef at a loss? No; they are do
ing nothing of the kind. No United
States beef is going to England. What
England gets and calls American
beef is South American beef
Now as to the effect of the tariff on
beef prices. The Evening Sun says
that the duty on dressed beef is % per
cent, How can that be? Paragraph
2S5 Schedule G, Agricultural Products
and Provisions. reads as follows:
2s5. Fresh beef, veal. mutton, lamb,
pDfk, DifdS, YIN r AMI oANHs-tlAhi-A
CENTS PER POUND.
According to the Evening Suns
statement that the duty is - per cent.
foreign dressed beef could be laid
down in New York at less than I cents
a pound, with total cost, duty paid,
of less than So cents pound, ana
would sell at retail at not more than
90 cents for the choicest cuts, and
from that down. If that We're true.
there should be heavy importations OF
South American frozen beef. There
would be big money in 1t. But there
are no frozen beef importations. There
must be a mistake somewhere. Ar
gentina would not be likely to lay
down her best meat in New York a.
less than cents per pound when
London stands ready to pay much
higher price. As a matter of fact. our
tariff of / y cents, as affecting retail
prices, amounts to not more than
per cent. on the higher grades of meat,
which are most in demand. and Ger
tainly not more than ~ per cent. on
the cheaper grades.
1T cannot be possible, then, that our
tariff of X cents a pound is response
BILE for the great increase in the price
of meats in the past two or three
years. A better and truer explanation
of this advance is TO be found in the
marked decrease in the supply of good
animals in the United States.
in 1900 the beef cattle in the United
States numbered more than 70i000,e0e.
In 1910, with an increase of nearly TO-
coo, 900 consumers, the supply had fall
len 10 81 .225.791 Here was an in
crease of nearly 20 per cent. in popu-
latfon and a decrease of about IA per
cent. in the domestic beef supply. IN
the same ten year period the number
of sheep and lambs was reduced from
62. 900. 900 to 81 100000, and the num-
Der of swine fell from 66,000,000 to 5S,-
900, 600. Again big decrease of meat
food and a big increase of population.
Clearly it is not a tariff of Y cents
a pound that keeps up the price of
dressed meats. The removal of that
tariff would probably not lower the
retail price of American beef by
fraction of a cent per pound"
Suppose the English working man
can buy inferior beef . per cent. less
than the American laborer pays for
the best. would the latter care to ex-
change conditions with the former?
Statistics compiled for the British
government show that of the 100000
adult wage workers in England:
-Four per cent. received less than
/ u