« AnteriorContinuar »
cattle came from Canada into the United States under those circumstances-cattle of that value.
Mr. KITCHIN. Statistics show that for a period of ten or five years we export into Canada many more than we import. I have before me a statement by Senator Cummins, written in the Editorial Review, in which he declared he had taken special pains to discover the difference in prices of cattle between Canada and this country, and he makes it out in some cases 25 and in some cases 50 per cent higher in Canada than in the United States. He said that with free trade between Canada and this country the growers of cattle would have nothing to fear. But I want to get down to Mexico. I am pretty well acquainted with this Canadian proposition.
Mr. Cowan. I do not like to let what you said go without a statement from me, notwithstanding Senator Cummins, with whom I am intimately acquainted. I have made a great deal more careful investigation than Senator Cummins ever did of the subject.
Mr. KITCHIN. I think your statement a while ago in answer to a statement by Mr. Fordney would show that you said you knew nothing about the Canadian proposition. What do you know about the Canadian cattle condition ?
Mr. Cowan. I would like to submit to you, Mr. Kitchin, a statement that was published by the Finance Committee of the Senate, "Beef raising in Canada,” which I secured from the agricultural department of the Dominion of Canada, published at Ottawa. It was so interesting to the Finance Committee that they ordered it printed as a public document. If you will read that you will find, I undertake to say, that Canada has been a great exporter to England and has succeeded
the United States. I will undertake to sayMr. Kirchin. We are talking about Canada's imports and exports to and from the United States
Mr. Cowan. I can not say everything at once; if you will allow me I will give you some information that is worth while to consider. I undertake to say that Canada has passed the United States in exportation to England of live cattle.
Mr. KITCHIN. Within the last ten years?
Mr. FORDNEY. Isn't it true that a large amount of the importations to Canada of American cattle went into Canada and then were exported to England ?
Mr. Cowan. All of the exports that went from this country to Canada went there for the purpose of grazing or for the purpose of breeding; nearly all of them for the purpose of grazing on ranches owned by Americans in the western part of Canada, many of which are exported to England, many of which have been brought back without paying duty to Chicago, and sold there in the market. I have clients who do business up there and I know what I am talking about. The packers themselves were the largest exporters from Toronto in 1910, and Toronto exported more cattle to England than did Chicago in 1910. That can all be verified. I have these documents somewhere.
Mr. Kitchin. You mentioned 1910. Just take a period of the last five years; how would it be?
Mr. Cowan. Going back five years, we have about doubled Canada in the exportation of cattle on the hoof.
Mr. KITCHIN. To England ?
Mr. Cowan. To England, and that is the only country you can export them to.
Mr. Kirchin. Have you any idea how much Canada in 1910, in dollars and cents, exported of beef on the hoof to England ?
Mr. Cowan. I have all those figures in my brief, but my time is so short I can not point them out. I examined the Canadian papers to find the figures and presented it to the Finance Committee of the Senate. They gave me two days for an argument on Canadian reciprocity and the free meat bill.
Mr. KITCHIN. Do you not think, going back to the Mexican and Argentine cattle producers, that if cattle should go on the free list competition would not come from Argentina but from Mexico ?
Mr. Cowan. You are entirely mistaken as to my view.
Mr. Cowan. Mr. Congressman, if you had permitted me to go ahead you would have found it out. I have only 45 minutes.
Mr. KITCHIN. We are going to extend your time. We will not charge you with the time occupied by these interruptions.
Mr. Čowan. I thank you very much for that. You will excuse me for speaking vigorously.
The CHAIRMAN. Your time is just what you use.
Mr. Cowan. I am glad to answer your questions, gentlemen, and I will answer them, and I can answer them because I have made a thorough examination of the subject. I do not say that boastingly, because I have devoted a great deal of time to it.
If you put South American beef on the free list you invite to this country the production from the cheapest lands and cheapest labor of the best live-stock and cattle-raising country on the face of the globe. To prove it I refer you to a pamphlet published by Mr. Mumford, in charge of the animal husbandry department of the University of Illinois. I refer you also to several documents; among others Mr. Whelpley's statement as to his examination in Argentina and the statement of Mr. Rommell, a special agent of the Agricultural Department. You will find these all referred to in my statement which was made a public document by the Senate Finance Committee when I addressed the committee in May, 1911, on this subject. I will undertake to say that it is a fact, and nobody here or anywhere else can successfully dispute it, that Argentina can raise cattle better and cheaper than any other country on the face of the globe, and they have not approached the utilization of the country for that purpose.
Mr. James. Do you think free meat would ruin the cattle industry? Mr. COWAN. It would.
Mr. James. Did not all the Members of Congress from Texas vote for free meat?
Mr. Cowan. I think they all did.
Mr. Cowan. They were; and we vote the Democratic ticket there in spite of politics, in spite of platforms, in spite of everything that
is said in any platform. If the Democratic platform says the prohibition, we vote for it; if it says "anti,” we vote for it.
Mr. JAMES. I know that is true
Mr. JAMES. I can not agree that the Texas Democrats blindly vote for party emblems. I think they do so intelligently. But the question I want to ask you is this: The Texas Members voted for free meat and free bread. They went before their constituency in a Democratic primary, where it did not cost anybody a dollar, as I understand, to run against them, and every one of them has been returned.
Mr. Cowan. It costs a lot of money to run for office there.
Mr. James. I mean, to get your name on the ballot. I will say for your State, that I believe Texas is as free from the corrupting use of money in politics as any State in the American Union.
Mr. Cowan. And you think they are in favor of free trade in our products ?
Mr. JAMES. No, sir.
Mr. Cowan. You say, because they voted for these Congressmen
Mr. JAMES. You said this would ruin your State and that Texas would suffer greatly by it. I merely asked you if it was not true that the Members of Congress voted for this thing, and you said it had returned them.
Mr. Cowan. Perhaps I know more about that-if I may be permitted to say so, Mr. James—than you do. Don't you know that the State convention at San Antonio two years, or a little over two years ago, put in the platform a plank opposed to free raw material ? Mr. JAMES. I understand they did on free raw material.
Mr. Cowan. And your platform at Baltimore did not say you were in favor of free trade in these products. What did they run on?
Mr. JAMES. Our platform at Baltimore did say this, that we indorse the votes of those Democratic Members of Congress upon this freelist bill in favor of free meat, and the national convention indorsed that, not only indirectly but directly, by indorsing our votes to pass these bills over President Taft's vetoes.
Mr. FORDNEY. You voted in Texas the Democratic ticket, and put in the House of Representatives a heavy Democratic delegation, and immediately after election packed your satchels, came up here, and prayed to them for God's sake not to do the very things they agreed to do if you elected them? [Laughter.]
Mr. Cowan. There is no use to take time about this, because we both understand it perfectly well.
Mr. JAMES. We are going to let you have all your 45 minutes. We are extending to you à courtesy that has not been given to all the great industries that have come here. We have given you more time than anybody else, and we are not going to take any of it away
Mr. Cowan. Now, Mr. James, if the committee will be just as good to the cattle raisers' association in the great live stock producing industry of the West as the committee is willing to be to me, I am willing to hand this thing to the printer and let it go.
PARAGRAPH 225— CATTLE.
Mr. KITCHIN. You said this association of these gentlemen furnished you with some of these facts to which you are alluding and convinced or toid you that Canada had been exporting more cattle to England than this country had. Would you mind my correcting you by the Statistical Abstract of Canada-not the cattle raisers and the Statistical Abstract of the United States Government on that point?
Mr. Cowan. Not at all. I want to be corrected whenever I am mistaken, Mr. Kitchin.
Mr. KITCHIN. Over 90 per cent of our cattle that are exported are exported to the United Kingdom. In 1906 the United States exported $42,081,170 worth, over 90 per cent going to the United Kingdom. Canada exported to the United Kingdom $11,044,000. In 1907 the United States exported $34,577,000.
Mr. Cowan. What year!
Mr. KITCHIN. I am going to come right up. Canada exported $10,448,000. In 1908 the United States exported $29,339,000, Canada $8,890,000.
Mr. Cowan. You are talking about dollars.
Mr. Cowan. That is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the numbers of cattle.
Mr. KITCHIN. I am going to show there were three or four times as much.
Mr. Cowan. I was talking about numbers.
Mr. KITCHIN. In 1909 the United States exported $18,046,000 worth; Canada $10,480,000. Now, in 1910 we exported $12,200,000 of which $11,479,000 went to the United Kingdom, and Canada only $10,058,000.' So you see in a period of five or ten years we have exported to England about three or four times as much as Canada. Of course, you believe exactly what you stated.
Mr. Cowan. I know what I stated
Mr. KITCHIN. But I was trying to impeach, as we say in the courts, the source of your information.
Mr. Cowan. But you can not do it, Mr. Kitchin. I will stand here and say I am not going to be impeached
Mr. KITCHIN. I said, impeach the source of your information.
Mr. Cowan. No; you can not do that. I will give you the source. Let me read something to you. I talked about numbers, didn't I?
Mr. KITCHIN. Yes.
Mr. Cowan. You admit that, don't you? And you talked about dollars?
Mr. KITCHIN. Yes.
Mr. Cowan. We export corn-fed cattle, the best in the world, to England, and there is no other country on earth that does it. So you get your dollars.
Mr. KITCHIN. We exported in 1906
Mr. KITCHIN. We exported in numbers about twice as many as Canada from 1906 to 1910.
Mr. Cowan. I admit it in the aggregate, and that was exactly my point. I said if I did not say it, I have said it in my brief-we reached the maximum in this country in 1906, since which time we have declined and Argentina and Canada have taken our trade.
Mr. FORDNEY. That is what you said before.
Mr. Cowan. That is what I thought I said. I was speaking of numbers, without taking up the subject of value, because I know there is no country in the world that produces cattle as valuable as the corn-fed cattle in the Mississippi and Missouri valley.
Mr. KITCHIN. I am telling you these statistics show that in 1906 up to 1910, inclusive, we exported twice as many
Mr. Cowan. In the aggregate, and I admit it. But, I said, we have come to the point where Canada had exceeded us, and I pointed to the fact that the packers had gone to Toronto and there bought cattle to export themselves to England.
Let me read from Mr. Mumford's statement, taken from the United States Department of Commerce and Labor Statitsical Abstract of Foreign Commerce, part 3, page 443, United States Department of Agricultural Bulletin 39, etc., the following figures: "In 1910 the United States exported in round figures 139,000 head, and Canada exported 157,000."
I wish I had the data I had here. I had that statement in which the Canadian department of agriculture maps out precisely
Mr. KITCHIN. You are right, in 1910. as to numbers.
Mr. Cowan. That is what I was talking about. In 1910, in April, that pamphlet was published. It is very interesting to anyone who wants information upon the subject, and the public document can be obtained from the Senate Committee on Finance. They point out that for the first time in history Canada had passed the United States, and more cattle were exported from Toronto than from Chicago during the season. What their season means I do not know, but I suppose in the fall season. There is no way to argue those things; the statistics will show for themselves what is correct and what is not. The most I can do is to make general statements.
Mr. KITCHIN. I have put them in the record
Mr. Cowan. Perhaps you and I were not agreed; we were missing one another. You did not understand what I said, and I did not understand what you were after.
Now, you spoke of Canada. When Canada can export to England in competition with Argentina 157,000 head of cattle on the hoofand it exports very little dressed beef, almost none-and comes in competition with Argentine beef in England, it must do it at the sacrifice of the price. We have reached the point in this country where the importations into this country are from 200,000 to 300,000 of Mexican cattle-poor, simply fit to be grazed and fed in this country, ultimately to make beef, amounting to as much in the aggregate as our total exports of canned beef and fresh beef from this country
Mr. HARRISON. That only amounts to about half as much as we export ourselves of cattle.
Mr. Cowan. It takes a lot of careful study. It requires reduction from beef and canned beef to heads of cattle, and a lot of figures to determine what is the equivalent of the exports in heads of cattleI mean our exports made in the shape of canned beef, dried beef,