Animal Wealth of the United States 517 



It is probable that this gain per cent 

 was fully maintained at the many smaller 

 markets throughout the country, and as 

 the gain in value was much greater than 

 the gain in number, the cattle raiser has 

 been doubly benefited under our present 

 tariff law. 



The present duty on cattle, Mr. Presi- 

 dent, is none too large for the protection 

 of our farmers and cattle growers. The 

 plea is made that the duty only benefits 

 the so-called "meat trust," and enables 

 the packers to control the price of meat, 

 which we know is greater than it was ten 

 years ago. I do not propose to either 

 condemn or defend the so-called "meat 

 trust." I simply want to assert that the 

 duty has nothing to do with the retail 

 price of meat, save in so far as our tariff, 

 in giving more employment and more 

 wages to consumers, creates a demand 

 for meat far in excess of previous years 

 and far in excess of the demands of any 

 other people. I have shown that the 

 value of cattle has increased over 50 per 

 cent since the Wilson-Gorman tariff. 



Meat in the United States, under pro- 

 tection, is less in price than in Great Bri- 

 tain under free trade. Beef, according 

 to the prices furnished by the New York 

 Produce Exchange, was 20 to 25 per cent 

 higher during 1905 than during 1895. 

 But corn and hay and labor were more 

 than 25 per cent higher. If the packers 

 do control prices, and if thev could im- 

 port cattle from Mexico, Canada, and 

 other countries duty free, then who would 

 benefit ? We would have to pav the same 

 price for beef, and the packers would 

 pocket the difference. Thev would then 

 compel our farmers and cattle growers to 

 meet the foreign price, depressing the do- 

 mestic industry, reducing cattle prices, 

 and then hold us at their mercy as re- 

 gards prices for retail consumption. 



SOME EXPERIENCES UNDER WILSON- 

 GORMAN ACT 



In this connection I want to give you 

 onr experience under the Wilson-Gorman 

 tariff. Under the tariff of 1890, known 

 as the "McKinley law," the duty of $10 



per head on cattle over a year old was 

 practically prohibitive. With the repeal 

 of that law and the reduction to 20 per 

 cent ad valorem under the tariff of 1894 

 importations of cattle were resumed. Let 

 me give you a few sentences from the 

 testimony of Representative Noonan, of 

 Texas, before the Ways and Means Com- 

 mittee of the Fifty-fourth Congress, Jan- 

 uary 5, 1897 : 



The present tariff has practically placed 

 horses, cattle, sheep, and goats on the free list, 

 and it has resulted in great loss to the breeders 

 of stock, many of whom have been bankrupted. 

 Numerous ranches have been abandoned or 

 have gone into decay, and millions of acres of 

 good grazing lands are unused and the grass 

 wasted because the business does not justify 

 stockmen in raising animals for market at 

 present rates. As a consequence all of their 

 industries are languishing from the effects of 

 Mexican competition. Nearly half a million of 

 cattle have been imported from Mexico into the 

 United States through Texas ports since the 

 repeal of the McKinley law. The ranchmen of 

 Texas are unable to sell their stock at the price 

 paid for the Mexican cattle. Texas cattle 

 raisers are required to rent or buy land upon 

 which to graze their cattle, and they are obliged 

 to pay more than double the wages paid in 

 Mexico. Hence citizens of Texas are almost a 

 unit against the importation of these Mexican 

 cattle. At least 95 per cent of the cattlemen in 

 Texas are opposed to the present duty and are 

 in favor of the restoration of the McKinley 

 rate. The tariff once restored — a specific tariff 

 and one sufficient to protect their interests — 

 the old abandoned ranches will at once be re- 

 occupied and our people will again be remu- 

 nerated for their expenditure and labor, and 

 the prosperity they have yearned for will re- 

 turn. 



Our farmers and cattle raisers want 

 protection for their product, and we 

 should be wronging every one of our 

 agriculturists and those depending on 

 them by lowering the present duty. The 

 benefit is far reaching, as can be seen by 

 the fact that of the 325,000,000 bushels 

 of corn produced in Nebraska in 1905, 

 half of it was fed to cattle ; the same ratio 

 undoubtedly holding good for Iowa, 

 Kansas, Missouri, and other sections. 



The tariff on cattle protects and bene- 

 fits nearly one-half of our people as pro- 

 ducers or dependents, and it does not 

 affect the price of meat to the consumer. 



