The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1920. ARMOUR AND COMPANY'S APPLICATION

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 23, 22 October 1920, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1920. ARMOUR AND COMPANY'S APPLICATION

' The report of ; the Parliamentary committee which recommended yesterday that a meat export license should be withhold from Akhoub 4Ni) Co. is marked by. prudent regard for the interests of producers in this country. One or two members found fault with the report on the ground that it tended needlessly to narrow the avenues of export trade, but the implied idea that trade openings, or what appear to be trade openings, ought to be utilised irrespective of any clangera their utilisation may entail is evidently reckless and unsound. The stand taken by the committee finds its ample justification in the fact that the firm refused a licensc is admittedly subsidiary to_ one of the big Chicago meat-packing firms whose'operations the American Government, under a strong pressure of public opinion, has for roany years been attempting to restrict and control. Since 1890 there have been periodical outcries ,in the American Legislature and Press regarding the power and influence of the /big meat packers, and, whatever may be said to the contrary, public opinion in the United States undoubtedly feels that these hugo combines and powerful individual interests have a prejudical effect both on the producer and on the consumer, and that the economies effected by these companies in dealing on an enormous scale with food products are more than offset by the disadvantages resulting from tho tremendous concentration of. power and influence>in their bands. At intervals, popular outcry in thfl United States has forced reforms of one kind or another on the packers. In 1890, following on a two years' investigation by a Senate committee, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act .was passed, but even 'this restrictive legislation did not break up the combination of the big packers, and in 1902 sweeping charges of conspiracy in restraint of trade wore, filed against them. The result was an injunction requiring them to desist from practices in restraint' of competition, but it does not seem to have been effective for any length of time. Again impelled to action by an outburst of public sentiment in 1911-19, the American Government cited the packers in a criminal suit. These proceedings failed, but the threat of a. n'vil suit led to »thc dissolution of the National Packing Company in 1912. Again in 1917, the President instructed the Federal Trade Commission to investigate allegations against the packers, and that body presented sweeping findings with which tlio public are_ familiar. A summary of the commission's report contains, amongst others, the following passages-— •

It appears that the five great packing concerns of tho country—Swift, Armour, Morris, Cudahy, and . Wilson—have attained such a doniinsMit position that they control at will the market in which they buy ilieir supplies, the market in which they sell their products, and holii tho fortunes of their competitors in their hands' . . . The producer of live-stock is at the mercy of tliese live ..companies, because they control the market and the marketing facilities, and, to some extent, the. rolling-stock which transports (he product to the market.

Further light was, cast on the methods of the packers at an inquiry conducted in 1919 by the committee on Agriculture and Forestry of the United States Congress. Tho Hon. Prakcis J. Heney, who ap-, peared on behalf of the Farmers' National Committed on Packing Plants and Allied Matters, submitted the following conclusion:—

That the live large packers .... have what is in effect a monopoly of' tho meat business of the United States, and have it. so entrenched by similar control over other meat-producing countries that are tributary to the United States—l refer particularly to South America—that they ara able to absolutely overturn the natural law of supply and demand in fixing the prices to tho producers as well as in lixing the prices to the consumers

Most people will remember that in December, 1919, it was announced that the five great packing corporations, as an alternative to being prosecuted in the United ■ States Courts, agreed to break up their trading combinations. They undertook to sell within two years theii subsidiary and affiliated concerns and devote themselves exclusively to the handling of meat products, and possibly to the sale of some other foods closely connected with moat. The spokesmen ancl representatives of the packers have consistently denied eliargcs of monopolistic tra'iing, but in announcing an agreement in the terms just brielly outlined, the American Attomey-Gen-eral (Mn, A. Mitchell -Palmer) was able to point out that

the iivb bit' packers, Armour and Co., Jlorris and Co., Swift nnd Co., Wilson mill Co., and the Cudnliy Packing Co.. their main subsidiaries and principal stockholders and inanaseis, had submit-' le-1 to all the contentions of the Government, and consented to the entry of an ii.ji.'nction dee'ree providing for the carryin;; out of'these coiunntions. It is claimed for Armour and Co. of New Zealand that they havo committed no offence, that their operations in this country, arc always open to scrutiny, and that they desire only to do business on a basis that will give no ground for objection. So far as we are aware, no one has accused them of doing business on unfair lines. Looking, however, at official and other evidence of what the operations of these big firms havo entailed in the United States over a long period of years, the Government and people of New Zealand can hardly be blamed if they feel that it is sensible and prudent to

run no risks and to maintain reasonable safeguards rather than invite possibilities of future dangers to the meat trade. The general question of the desirability of opening up an extended market for export produce is not raised. What has to be considered is whether the particular extension of trade now proposed is safe and desirable, and this is easily answered. Why should New Zealand take risks in dealing with a firm subsidiary to one member of the group of big packers on which so much trouble has centred United States, and which the American Government has found it so necessary, and so difficult, to bring under restrictive control?