[Published By Arrangement.] AMERICAN MEAT TRUST

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 275, 14 August 1920, Page 8

[Published By Arrangement.] AMERICAN MEAT TRUST

THE TRUTH ABOUT IT A' PLAIN TALK ADDEESSED TO N.Z. FAIIMJSHS. (By W. Irving Carney, of Armouii AND Qo., OF AITSTItALASIA.) ARTICLE I, Wlmt i 6 the truth about tho American iik-iit Trust? The answer is contained in one short sentence: There isiv'c one. ;m)w this is a hard saying. Tho New Zealand farmers in particular will find it difficult to believe. AVo 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 tho Inst two or three, our farmers havo had "tho American Ment Trust" dinned into their cars. They havo beon told that it is an "octopus" whose tentacles will strangle them; that its "ramifications" aro world-wide; that it is a horrible, fearsonio menace to tho farmer's very existence—to his peace, his prosperity, his prices.

Tho fact that theso statements were originated and are inspired, both in America and in Now Zealand, by interested middlemen peoplo with tho strongest motives, deeply concerned to drivo tho American meat buyers, tu rival competitors, out of tho Held—this fact never eeems to havo aroused tho fanners' suspicions. UnfortunaUli.v, many politicians and 6orae journalists iiavo accepted these statements without inquiry,. hav,e endorsed them aud repeated them, and havo even prompted and suggested legislation based upon them.

i!ot theso statements about the existence of an American Meat Trust and its "menace" to New Zealand are absolutely and demonstrably untrue. It is the object of this series of articles to disprove these statements and to demonstrate that unrestricted competition, whether by American, British or colonial buyers, must inevitably bo in tho truest interest, not only of tho New Zealand farmer, but of the. peoplo of the Dominion as a whole.

The Trust lio has been repeated again and again. We were going to add, in tho familiar phrase, "in season and out of season." Bnt that would be incorrect: this lio has no seasons; it is a hardy perennial, as hardy, as persistent, and as noxious as Californian thistle itself.

We propose in this 6eries to treat tho lie as wise farmers do Californian thistle—not to sprinkle it with "exterminator," or dope it with arsenic—not even to hoo it or grub it. We propose to eradicate it—in good, plain Anglo-Saxon, to pull it up by the roots. Read this series of articles through. If necessary, read them again, so that you won't forget them. If you are a farmer, a meat producer, or in any way connected with tho food-producing industries of this Dominion, these articles will interest you. So much we promise oiow. AVhen you have finishied reading it, judge whether we have also kept our promise to •eradicate tho lies about tho alleged American Meat Trust and its menace to New Zealand and its farmers. Wo propose in these articles to present tho facts to you in sections, of whioh tho earlier parts deal with tho meat packers in America. They set out to prove there is no Trust or Combination between them. They constitute in. fact, a complete answer to tho report of the Federal Trade Commission. The later sections come nearer home. They deal with the history and tho position of Armours in New 'Zealand; with the attempt by an undemocratic law to drive them out of competition with their rivals; and with, tho injury done to New Zealand farmers by an attempt to establish a monopoly ot' non-Aineriean buyers; and to shut out American capital and American enterprise from competing against British nnd local companies in tho purchase of New Zealand meat. In order to make our story complete and our argument conclusive, it is necessary to begin at tho Amorican end. But we cannot expect you to bo as deeply interested in Amorican commerce, or American politics as, wo hope, you are in your own. But all tho time you are reading these articles keep this question steadily before your mind: What is going to happen to your prices when tho meat commandeer is lifted, if you restrict competition among buyers? You have heard much about Tho Big Tive." They are indeed big.' Wo shall have a good deal to say about their bigness later on. Wo 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 wo start-with this statement:—

The Packers Do Not Form a Trust. This word, by the way, is perhaps not familiar to you. Tho packers in America correspond to tho "freezing, companies" here, except thut they do not freeze. They do everything required to bo don© to the beast between tho slaughter yard and the retail shop. . Now, these packers nro not engaged.in any combine or conspiracy in restraint of trade. On the contrary, they aw been, open, energetic competitors, one against another. la support of this statement wo adduce, first, this: That each nnd all of tho heads of tho Chicago packing firms have denied on oath that they buy or sell in collusion or by agreement. Tho accusation has been made in the Courts of tho United States, it has been refuted by tho 6 worn testimony ot the packers;' and the charges have been dismissed. . . >T And perjury in America as in JNew 7/ealand 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 licpresentatives of that country. In particular on January 21, 1919, Mr. J. Oguen Armour, the head of Armour and Co., in the course of his evidence before tho Committee of the of Representatives on luter-Stato and I'oreigu 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, agroement or combination of any kind whatever, for tho control, regulation, limitation, or restriction of tho purchase of livo stock or the sale of any of the products or by-products thereof. Any and overy statement which charges that such combination or arrangement exists is nntruo.' Again, in October, 1919, Mr. J. Ogdon Armour committed himself to a similar and even more emphatic refutation :— Armour and Co. are in no understanding, are in no agreemont, expressed or implied, with any other packer or company, which has for its purpose or has the effect of limiting tne amount or kind of livo stock purchased, or to be purchased, or fixing the prico or prices to b« paid therefor, or arranging a division of territory, or controlling or regulating or fixing inanyshapo or form the manner, tho method, or tho prico at which any or all of the commodities dealt in by Armour and Co. are purchased, handled, distributed, or 6old. I hopo that is sufficiently definite. I would have put it moro

etrously if I could. "Sperling's Journal," October, 1919. Similar statements havo been made by each and all of the other firms of "Tho Bi<r Five" in terms equally precise and comprehensive. Is it: too much to ask New Zealand farmers to accept as true those 6pecifio declarations made ou oath by men who know the facts?

It is true Mr. J. Ogdon Armour is an American millionaire, and somo New Zealand tanners, wo know, have a vaguo apprehension that American millionaires tire u people apart. But it is equally Iruo that Mr. i. Ogdon Armour is an American gontlomau. and an American gentleman sets as high a vnluo upon his reputation as a maoi of honour as do tho gentlemen of any other nation. Some Facts in Support.' But we do not ask Now Zealand farmers to accept without tho most cogont-

corroboration the- mere statements, even iihen made, on oath, of a number of American gentlemen. Wo propose, to support thoso statements with facts and figures. AVo tuko it llio following propositions will bo accepted as axiomatic:— (1) Tho only object of a Trust or . Trade Combine is to make undue pro- ; fits for tho mombers. ' (2) This is attained in ono or both of two ways:— (n) By decreasing tho price paid for tho produce to tho producer. (b) By increasing tho pnw charged for tho product to tho consumer. (3) A "Trust" usually attains its object by controlling tho prico at both end* by means contrary to tho community welfare. If, then, a Meat 'J'rust is or has been for any length of time in being there must "exist clear and unmistukablo evidence of its baneful operations in threo sots of facts, or at least two of them. (1) That tho Producer is receiving less for what ho produces. (2) That tho Consumer is paying more than ho ought for what he consumes. (3) That the Trust or Middle Party is earning extortionate profits at tho expense of Producer or Consumer, or both. Tot what do we find? Take bacon as typical. The prices paid for hogs on tlio hoof, in tho Chicago Hog Market havo risen as follow:— In 1915 7 dollars 10 ccnls per 1001b. weight. In 1916 9 dollars 60 cents per 1001b. weight. In 1917 15 dollars 10 cents per 1001b. weight. In 1918 17 dollars 15 cents per 100 lb. weight. In these four years, therefore, tho prico paid in tho open market for live hogs increased by 245 per e< K Not bad for tho pig-farmer, you wiK ndmil! In 1915 tho retail price of bacon to the American householder varied from 25 to 30 cents per pound. In 1918 it varied from 70 to 75 cents per pound; an increase of from 150 to ISO cent.

During the period that the live hog increased 215 per cent, in price, therefore, the cured bacon increased only 180 per cent. What is true of bacon is true, also, but in less degree, of beef and mutton. In 19H Armour and Co. paid for notivo steers in the open market 9 dollars 00 cents. In 1918 the price had risen to 16 dollars 25 cents. Sheop, lambs, and yearlings in the same period had more than doubled. But what of the profits of the alleged "Trust" in the same period? The period chosen for illustration is the best that could bo selected to clinch our argument, and for this reason: It was the period of War. The Food Administration of the United States prescribed maximum profits in the essential industries. Koguhtionß formulated on Novembor 1, 1917, regulated profits in the meat trade in a more drastic manner than was prescribed for any other industry. The books of account of all Anns and persons engaged in food production or food distribution were subjected to the most rigorous Governmental scrutiny. No one, therefore, can ouestion, nor has any departmental officer, in fact, questioned the truth of the astonishing statement wo shall make in our next article.

rOwinpr to unavoidable pressure on our snace, the second advertisement in this series cannot appear till Tuesday, August 17.]