The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1929-07-10
WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1929
THE TARIFF ON HIDES

THE TARIFF ON HIDES
What good does it do the farmer to
have ten per cent duty on hides if
he has to pay 20 per cent duty on
shoes and Is per cent duty on har-
ness? The question is respectfully sub
mitted to Rudy Lee or Jim Morrison
Olivia Times.
Thus queries Jim Landy in the Olivia Times,
and we admire his good judgment in knowing
just where to come for information. The Satur-
day Evening Post has it figured out that the
tariff on hides is going to benefit the average
farmer $500 year, and that the tariff on leath-
er and shoes is going to cost the average farm
family about $500 extra on betting, harness and
shoes-a difference of $1.40 per farm per year.
This is for the purpose of proving that there
isn't much nourishment for the farmer in farm
tariff anyway, and the figures may therefore be
taken with a grain of SALT but We'll take them
anyway All right, average farmers. Our farm
ers may be average farmers when it~comes to
wearing Shoes but when it comes to producing
hides our farmers are away above the average,
and so too are the farmers of that fine county
of Renville, where the kindly Jim ~Landy presides
over the destinies of the Olivia Times. There
are 59,829,OOO cattle in the 6,371, $40 farms of
the United States, which means average OF
little over nine head of cattle per farm There
are 24,6OO cattle on the 1929 farms in Stevens
county an average Of 10 head per farm, and
there are $4,000 cattle on the 3,016 farms of
Renville county, or II cattle per farm.
The average per farm is approximately the
same for every county in the 7th congressional
district Now, Jim, since we have twice the num-
Der of cattle as the average farm in the United
States, we are due to get double benefit that the
average farm gets from the duty on hides, while
the duty on shoes costs us the same, leaving a
net profit of $4.20 per farm per year. And be-
sides that the tariff on hides helps the price of
those dairy breeds that go for Gamers and cut
tiers. And besides that again, helping the work
ers of the shoe industries of st. Paul means a
better market there for milk, butter and
beef-Jim Morrison in Morris Tribune
The above is interesting chiefly in illustrat-
ing the bunk that can be hashed up to delude the
farmer Further than this it is unworthy of any
man who poses as friend of the farmer.
In the first place the number of cattle on the
farms of the United States (which in 1928 was
more than four million less than, the number
stated), has but slight bearing upon the value
of the proposed tariff duties on hides, because
the annual turnover in cattle is very far from
100 per cent. In fact the annual turnover will
not exceed one-thrd of the total number of live
cattle in the country in any one year. Therefore,
accepting as accurate the, estimated benefits
above cited, these benefits must at the outset be
cut to one-third of what is claimed
But the benefits to the farmers of the pro-
posed duty on hides as claimed above will no.
more stand analysis than will the number of cat
tie used as basis to illustrate such benefits.
This is true because any benefits resulting from
the proposed new tariff will go almost entirely
to the packers and not to the farmers, for at
least three very pertinent reasons:
First, very few farmers kill cattle, either for
their own use or for the marketing of beef, and
therefore the number of hides the farmer has to
sell is wholly inconsequential.
Second, if the full 10 per cent duty on hides
could be reflected to the farmer on all the cattle
he has to sell, the benefit he would receive would
be practically negligible.
Third, there is no reason to believe that the
duty on hides would effect the price of cattle by
even fraction of cent, for there is nothing
In the record to show that the price of hides has
the slightest bearing on the price of CATTLE
The first point is so self apparent as to re-
quire substantative argument.
Considering the second point above raised,
the average hide weighs approximately fifty
pounds, or one-twentieth of the weight of the
live animal. If farmer sold thousand pound
steer for IL cents pound he might figure the
hide brought him Sc. But the 10 per cent duty
does not apply to the live ANIMAL but merely to
the hide of the dead animal, So how is the-1o
per cent on the hide to be passed on to the farm
err? Does anyone imagine that the packer is GO
ing to figure that the hide is worth Sc and then
add 10 per cent on the assumed value of the hide
in the price he pays the farmer for the steer I?
But let us assume this certainly improbable trans
action should happen. What then would the
farmer receive He would receive the munifcent