THE TRUTH ABOUT AMERICAN MEAT TRUST.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 August 1920, Page 8

THE TRUTH ABOUT AMERICAN MEAT TRUST.

A PLAIN TALK ADDRESSED TO NEW ZEALAND FARMERS. Article I. What is the Truth about the American Meat Trust? The answer is contained in one short sentence: — THERE ISN'T ONE. Now this is hard saying.' New Zealand Farmers in particular will find it difficult to believe. We anticipate, indeed, that many of them will flatly refuse to believe it—at first. And no wonder! For ten years or more, but especially during the last two or three, our Farmers have had "the American Meat Trust" dinned into their ears. They have been told that it is an "Octopus" whose tentacles will strangle them; that its 'ramifications" are world-wide: that it is a horrible, fearsome menace to the Farmer's very existence—to. his peace, his prosperity, his prices. The, fact that these statements were, originated and are inspired, both in America and in New Zealand, by interested middlemen—people with the strongest motives, deeply concerned to drive the American meat buyers, as rival competitors, out of the field—this fact never seems to have aroused the farmers' suspicions. Unfortunately, many politicals and some journalists have accepted these statements without inquiry, have endorsed them and repeated them, and have even prompted and, suggested legislation based upon them. Yet these statements about the existence of an American Meat Trust and its ."menace" to New Zealand are absolutely I' and demonstrably untrue. It is. the I object of this 'series of articles to disaprove these statements and ftp demonstrate that unrestricted competition, whether by American, British or ' Colonial buyers, must inevitably be in the truest interest, not only of the New Zealand Farmer, but of the people of -the Dominion as a wlfble. The Trust lie has been repeated again and again. We were going to add, in the familiar phrase, "in season and out of season." But that would be ineorj rect; this lie has no seasons; it is ! a hardy perennial, as hardy, as persist- ! ent, and as noxious as Californian I 'thistle itself.

We propose in this series to trpat the lie as wise Farmers do Californian thistle—not to sprinkle it with "exterminator," or dope it, with arsenic—not even to hoe it or grub it. We propo& to eradicate ft—in good, plain AngioSaxon, to pull it up by the roots. Read this''series of articles 'through. If necessary, read then again, so that you won't' forgot them. If you are a Farmer, a Meat Producer, or in any way connected with the food-producing industries of this Dominion these articles will interest you. So much we promise now. When you have finished reading it, you shall judge whether we have also kept our promise to eradicate the lies about the alleged American Meat Trust and its menace to New Zealand and its Farmers.

1 We propose to present the facts to you ill insertion of which the earlier deßl with the Meat Packers in America. They set out to prove there is no Trust or Combination between them. They constitute, in fact, a complete i • ANSWER' TO THE REPORT of the Federal Trade Commission. The latter sections come nearer home. They deal with the history and the position of Armours in New Zealand; with the attempt by an undemocratic law to drive theni out of competition with their rivals; and with the injury done to New I Zealand farmers by an attempt to estabi lisli a monopoly of non-American buyers; and to shut out American capital and American enterprise from competing against British and Local Companies in the purchase of New Zealand meat. In order to make our story complete and oi»r argument conclusive, it is necessary to Tjegin at the American end. But we'oannot expect yon to be as deeply interested in American commerce, or Amqrican politics as, we hope, you are , in your own. But all the time you are reading these articles, keep this question steadily before your mind: What is going to happen to your prices when the Meat Commandeer is lifted, if you restrict competition among buyers? THE POSITION IN AMERICA. You have heard much about "The Big Five." They are indeed big. We shall

have a good deal to say about their bigness later on. We merely remark, in passing on, that Big Business is, not synonymous with Bad Business; on the contrary in certain lines it is the Best Business in the interests of the whole community. But of that later. Meanwhile we Start with this statement: THE PACKERS 1)0 NOT FORM A TRUST. H This word, by the way, is perhaps not familiar to you. The Packers in America correspond to the "Freezing Companies" here, except that they do not freeze. They do everything required to be 'done to the beast between the slaughter yard and the retail shop. Now, these Packers are not engaged in any combine or conspiracy in restraint of trade. On the contrary they are keen, open, energetic competitors, one against another.

In support of this statement we adduce, first, this:—That each and a|l of the heads of the Chicago Packing Firms have denied on oath that they buy or sell in collusion or by agreement. The accusation has been imuie in the Courts of the United States, it has been refuted by the sworn testimony of the Packers; and the charges have been dismissed. And perjury in America, as in New Zealand, is a criminal offence, followed by very unpleasant consequences. The accusation has been made before Committees of the United States Parliaments; it has been met by categorical denials supported by overwhelming facts and figures, and these are on the records of the Senate and House of. Representatives of that country. In particular on January 21st, 1919, Mr. J. Ogdcn Armour, the head of Armour and Co., in the t'ouse of his evidence before the Committee of the House of Representatives on Inter-State and Foreign Commerce (H.R. 13324) said:— "I desire to say, with all the emphasis that words can convey, that Armour and Company are not now, and . .have not been for many years, a party, in the most remote degree to any pool, arrangement, agreement or combination of any kind whatever, for the control, regulation, limitation or restriction of the purchase of live stock or the sale of any of the products or. by-products thereof. And every statement which charges ithat such combination or arrangement exists is untrue."

Again, in October, Mr. J. Ogden Armour committed himself to a similar and even more emphatic refutation:— "Armour and Co. are in no understanding, are in no agreement, expressed or implied, with any other Packer or Company, which has for its purpose or has the effect of limiting the amount or kind of live, stock purchased, or fixing the price or pricas to be paid therefor, or arranging a divis-' ion of territory, or controlling or regulating or fixing in any shape or form the manner the method or the price at which any or all of the commodities dealt in by Armour and Co. are purchased, handled, distributed, or sold. I hope that is sufficiently defi- | nite. I would have put it more strongly if I could." Sperling's Journal, October, 191!). Similar statements have been made by each and all of the other firms of ''The Big Five" in terms equally precise and comprehensive. Is it too much to ask the New Zealand farmers to accept us true these specific declarations made on oath by men who know the facts? It is true Mr. J. Ogden Armour is an American millionaire, and some New Zealand fanners, wc know, have a vague apprehension that American millionaires are a people apart. But it is equally true that Mr. J. Ogden Armour is an American gentleman, and an American gentleman sets as high a value upon his reputation as a man of honor as do the gentlemen of any other nation. SOME FACTS, IN SUPPORT. But we do not ask New Zealand farm-, ers to accept without the most cogent cor roboration the mere statements, even when made on oath, of a number of American gentlemen. We propose to support those statements with facts and figures. Wc take it the following propositions will be accepted as axiomatic: (i) The only object of a Trust or Trade Combine is to make undue profits for the members. (2) This is attained in one or both of two ways:—^ (a) By decreasing the price paid for the produce to the Producer. (b) By increasing the price charged for the product to the Consumer. (3) A "Trust" usually attains its object by controlling the price at both ends by means contrary to the community welfare. If, then, a Meat Trust is or has been for any length of time in being 'there must exist clear and unmistakable evidence of its baneful operations in three sets of facts, or at least two of them. (1) That the Producer is receiving less for what he produces. (2) That the Consumer is paying more (linn he ought for what he consumes. (3) Thai the Trust or Middle Party is earning extortionate profits at the expense of Producer or Consumer, or both.

Yet what (In we find? Take hncon as typical. The prices paid for hogs on the hoof in the Ohicago Hog Market haVe risen as follow: In Ifllo, 7 dollars 10 cents per 1001b weight. In Jol.fi 0 dollars 00 cents per 1001b weight. In 1017 15 dollars 10 cents per 1001b weight. In ]!I1R"17 dollars 43 cents per 1001b weight. In these four years, therefore, the price paid in the open market for live j hogs increased by 245 per cent. Not bad for the pig : farmcr, you will admit! In 1 !)];"> the retail price of bacon to the American householder varied from 25 to ,')0 cents per pound. In WIS it varied from 70 to 75 cents per pound; an increase of from 150 to ISO per cent. During the period that the live hog increased 245 per cent in price, therefore, the cured bacon increased only ISO per cent. What, is true of bacon is true, also, but in less degree, of beef and mutton. In 1014 Armour and Co. paid for Native steers in the open market 0 dollars !)0 cents. In 101S the price had risen to 16 dollars 25 cents. Sheup, lambs, and yearlings in the, same ; period had more than doubled. j But, what, of the. profits of the alleged j "Trust" in the same period? The period chosen for illustration is ' the best that could be seleclted to clinch |our argument, and for this reason: It | was the jicriod of war, The Food Ad--1 ministration of the United State! pre-

scribe?! maximum profits in the essential industries. Regulations formulated on November Ist, 1017, regulated profits in the Meat. Trade in a more drastic manner than was prescribed for any other industry. The books of account of all firms and persons engaged in food production or food distribution were subjected to the most rigorous Governmental scrutiny. No one, therefore, can. question, nor lias any departmental "officer, in fact, questioned the truth of the as* tomshing statement we shall make in i our next article.—Published by Arrangei ment.