Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-25
Back to the Free List.

The tariff duties proposed to be
levied on hides, leather, boots and shoes
were whipsawed out of the tariff bill
by conflict of interests in the Senate
yesterday. The duty on hides was
designed to aid the American farmer,
particularly the livestock men. The
duty on leather, boots and shoes. which
has been referred to many times as
compensatory" duty, placed in the bill
as an offset to the increased prices
which the manufacturers might have
to pay for their raw material in the
event OF the duty on hides being ac-
cepted, met the opposition of Senators
who hail from the agricultural States.
They were unable to see how the farm
ers would be benefited by an increase
IN the prices they obtained for hides
II at the same time they had to pay
an increased price for shoes and
leather goods.
The effort of Western Senators was
to increase the duty on hides, but this
was defeated by a combination of Re-
publican Senators from the East and
Democrats from the East and South.
After the Oddie amendment, proposing
the duties on the hides, had been re-
jected by such combination, Senator
Borah Of Idaho and other Senators
from the West retaliated by voting for
an amendment to cut out all duties
on hides, leather, boots and shoes and
to restore the language of the present
law, which places hides and boots and
shoes on the free list. And joining
with these Senators from the West
were the Democrats of the South.
The debate in the Senate indicated
that both the livestock producers and
the manufacturers of shoes and leather
were meeting competition from abroad.
Hides from Argentina and shoes from
Czechoslovakia and other countries are
coming in increasing quantities into
this country to disturb the producers
here. Unfortunately for the producers,
however, it was found impossible to
agree upon measure Of protection for
all that was acceptable. America has
led for years in the production Of boots
and shoes. The shoe manufacturers
have asked no duty in the past on their
products, so long as they were able to
purchase their raw materials in an I'M
protected market. Foreign competition,
however, has increased as foreign pro-
ducers have been able to obtain ma
chinery similar to that developed and
used In this country.
The American farmer is entitled to
greater protection from the tariff than
he has had In the past. But if the theory
Of protection is to be Northumberland
there are few who would now insist
upon policy Of free trade or even for
tariff for revenue only-the manufac-
turers Of this country must be given
protection, too. II is particularly I'M
fortunate that 1t was impossible in the
Senate to agree upon a proposal that
would be fair both to the farmers and
to the manufacturers in the case of
hides and boots and shoes. On the
other hand, the American consumer,
who Is interested merely in pur-
chasing uOO1c anu SloeS anu ISdGIlcE
goods at the lowest possible figure, may
be somewhat better of than if an
agreement had been reached. The
farmers and the men and women who
make boots and shoes and leather hap
pen to be consumers Of these articles,
too. In the House duties were levied
on hides, leather, boots and shoes. The
matter must still be thrashed out in
conference between the two houses, and
1t may be possible yet to adjust the diff
ferences on fair basis.