The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1921-07-21

prewar levels largely was responsible
duties. Those farmer Representatives
4 who voted for the hides tariff insisted
4 that the shoe manufacturers were
< making extortionate profits. "A dozen
pairs OF $40 shoes can be made from a
50 hide. It was asserted.
1t is certain that the proposal of
some to place duty on leather prod
ucts. while leaving hidesson the free
list will not prevail. Too many MEM
bers have been compelled to pay high
prices for shoes, and whether the prices
are justified majority of the MEM
bers believe the leather manufacturers
have not reduced their prices in pro-
portion to the reduction on hides. Rep
resentative Kreider (Pa.). a shoe man
ufacturer, sought to defend his bust
ness on the floor. but his attempts only
caused laughter.
Kftchin Telegraphs Appeal.
The hides tariff advocates probably
will lose a good sized bloc of Demo-
cratic votes on a rollcall as the result
OF telegram from Representative
Kftchn On. CO., Democratic leader, who
Is now In poor health at his home, Scot
land Neck. Mr.. Kitchin strongly urged
the Democrats to vote against a duty on
hides, cotton and oil and all compensa-
tory duties.
THE principle of aiding the favored
few at the expense of the many Is UNI
democratic he said.
Mr.. Kitchin declared that the Fordney
tariff will be a big issue in 1922 and
1924. and urged Democrats to forget
particular situation in a special dis
trict and support the tariff stand of the
Democratic party for the last 100 years.
Representative Hawley (Ore.) Of the
Ways and Means Committee Is leading
the fight for free hides. He pointed out
that the tariff would increase the price
of shoes at least 80 cents pair. He
estimated that the additional cost TO the
shoe buyers of this country would be at
least $4,000. 900, while the greatest gain
hoped for that would accrue to the pro-
Queer would be about s300000o0. The
United States makes about 350o0O,O00
pairs of shoes year. but some of these
are exported.
THE Is per cent. duty in all probabil-
ity would increase the price of imported
hides by a corresponding amount and
the hides produced in this country would
through the laws of supply and demand
approach or equal the import prices.
said Mr. Hawley 1.-The packer would
be the chief beneficiary. The packing in
'terests obtain es, or 10 per cent of the
hides produced in s0.. country when they
Siiv nlee animals ~ one sense it might
b. getd .hat they obi n these hides for
nolhng. We impor, about 40 per cert
Of tho hides consumed so that the duty
would easily enahl ~ packers to In
crease The price WIG! sold to tanners
or leather manufacturers. The packers
also are largely interested in the i'm
ports of South American hides up to
would promptly put all hides up to
level which would enable them to make
a profit on the imported hides"
Trade Commi ssion Report.
lin its report on leather and shoe in
dustries the Federal Trade Commission
in 1919 said:
"a '"rhe Ave large meat packers have be-
come a considerable factor in the leather
business end their power and influence
are rapidly increasing. Two of these
packers are large producers of leather.
Two others are important producers,
and the NTH recently entered the tan
ming business. They can place every
tanner using the more desirable grades
OF hides particularly the heavier hides.
in q position Of paying the price they
may ask or Of taking the risk of encoun-
tering further competition in the leather
Industry from them
Representative Burton (Ohio) said to-
day that every Republican tariff leader
in the last forty years. with the excep-
tion OF Chairman Fordney. has supported
free hides
Hides have become by-product.' he
said. Cattle are now sold for their
meat value: an increasing share of the
cattle slaughtered are killed In the es-
Establishments of the packers, and their
organizations also have an increasing
share in the tanning industry OF the
country.