Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1886-03-01
dbe Ea,,fastcr JntelIi9eater.
LANCASTER. MARCH /. 1885.
The Beef Controversy.

The Beef Controversy.
Commissioner Fink writes an excellent
letter to the newspapers closing his part of
the controversy concerning the rates of
freight established by him on dressed beef 4
feeves on the hoof carried into the East
ketsp HIS statement pnts . differ
ent phase on the matter, and seemsto show
quite clearly that the dressed beef shippers
have nothing to complain of.
The position we have taken is that the
railroads should adjust their freights ac-
corling to the cost TO them of their ser
vice and upon this manner of adjustment
Mr.. Fink says that dressed beef would be
charged higher late than the one /
It now pays. He says that dressed /
beef costs the railroads more than twice |
a. much to carry to the East, as it |
costs them to carry live cattle. The reason
he gives is that the refrigerator cars are
much heavier than the stock cars, because
of the mode Of their construction and be-
cause of the large amount of ice carried in
them to preserve the meat; as the cost of |
carrying is according to the total weight |
carried, as well the dead weight as that
which is charged for, it follows that the
additional dead weight of the refrigerator
car, over its contents of beef, must be
added to the weight of the beef, to get
the comparative weight of the dressed
beef and live beef load. In carrying cattle
on the hoof, their waste weight over their
dressed weight is carried and in carrying
dressed beef, the extra weight of the car
and its ice is carried; and we understand
Mr.. Fink to say that the total weightlof
the car and the load of dressed beef is
double that Of the car and load of live beef.
This being the fact, it seems clear enough
that the railroad company would be war
ranted in charging twice as much per
pound for carrying dressed beef as for car
rying cattle.
And there is an additional element of cost
in carrying the dressed beef in the fact that
no return load is taken in the refrigerator
cars, which are hauled back empty to the
West; while the live stock cars can be
used for carrying merchandise back. This
OF course is an important consideration to
the carrier in estimating the cost OF the
business.
Upon Commissioner Fink's statement
the dressed beef dealers seem to be the fa-
vored parties. He says the respective rates
have been made, at the suggestion origin
ally of Frank Thomson, of the Pennsyl-
vania railroad, upon the basis of the deliv-
cry of each kind of meat into the Eastern
market at the same proportionate price, 80
that neither industrywould have any advan-
tage over the other. He says the method
is necessary because there can be no exact
determination of one figure of relative cost
to the different railroads engaged in the
carrying business, of carrying dressed and
live beef. The cost to different railroads
in each case differs according to
the different kinds of freight and
Mr.. Fink, in his capacity as commission
or to fix the freight charges for all the
roads, finds himself unable to make sat-
isfactory rate to all of them based on the
question of cost. He, therefore, justifies a
rate fixed according to what each industry
can pay without injury to its trace by the
competition of the other.
As we have said heretofore, this is the
exercise of a legislative function by the
railroads which can scarcely be justified
If dressed beef costs more to carry than
live beef, the industry suffers under a nat
ural disadvantage, which it is not the
place of the common carrier to correct ;
and 1t is hardly one which the leg
islature would desire to correct. The
cheap importation Of Western killed
beef is not an advantage to the Eastern
butcher, certainly; and it is not an advant-
age to the Eastern public, either to furnish it
Western killed dressed beef unless it can be
furnished cheaper than beef slaughtered
here. 1t is not as wholesome meat all the
year round. The refrigeration does not
benefit it. The fresher the beef is the bet
ter it is; not only is it less likely to be
tainted but it is more tender and juicy.
1t is not to be supposed that the legisla.
tures Of the states on the Atlantic border
: desire to put the farmers and butchers OF
their own states at an unnatural disadyan
tage in competing for the supply of the
home market with beef. 1t probably.
Il true, as alleged, that the live
cattle imported from the West are
not in good condition to slaughter
right out Of the cars on their arrival. For
= this evil the legislature can afford ready
remedy by forbidding the slaughter of cattle
within proper period after their arrival.
This would be an advantage to home fed
cattle, which the home raiser it entitled to
have given him blythe legislature of his state,
Tit be true that freshly imported cattle
are not in good condition for the market.
II this Is the fact the Legislature ought To
protect the beef consumer against it, and
II In 20 doing it also protects the beef raiser
at home, it kills two birds with one stone
Such legislation as TO the live beef traffic
would help greatly the importers of dressed
besf but il the public benefit requires it
thsy are entitled to it. The whole question
IS cnsfor careful consideration by the East
ern legislatures, and the present agitation
of Il by interested parties is likely to sc
euys u such consideration.