Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-03-18
October Of the same year. aud II doubled
the capacity Of the plant.
THE COST.

, October Of the same year. aud II doubled
the capacity Of the plant.
THE COST.
The total cost of the plant has been
S3g3, 900. divided thus; The original
building involved the expenditure Of
S2DS,OUO. aud the additions the addition
nj sum Of SlSiOO
For the first six months the packing
house paid. the profits IN that time being
fully $4,000. After that 1t never paid,
aud this non-paying ability. finally ended
in the foreclosure sale, % which more
later.
WHY DID IT FAIL2
Naturally comes the question why In
the midst Of cattle growing country
was a scheme palnpnhly well designed, a
failure SO absoiutef The answer comes
very readily, in part at least, it was too
large Gov the business The proper plan
would nyIe been plant about one
fourth the size of the one actually put
up said one interested In the packing
house. SAY nt cost of nhout SjO,OOO,
and then as the business developed let
the necessary additions be mude.' But
that Is an ended now and thero is neither
time nor desire to 90 into recrimua-
tiOns on questions Of Judgment though
Il Is the fact that the packing house was
too large, and hence II could not get the
needfu number Of animals 20 slaughter
10 keep the plant busy.
A MORTGAGE DEED.
Financial troubles came. and IN Nov
emher 1891, 100000 Of FIRST mortgage
bonds were issued aud sold,
There was u default Ia the Interest
on these bonds, aud sale under the
foreclosure of the deed of trust. This
sale took place GU the first Of October
1872, and at the sale the Farmers and
Merchants National bank 81 this city
bought IN the packing house paut
NOT ENOUGH HOGS
That this packing house was a failure
from financial standpoint Is no secret
IN this state, and the causes for tho
failure. without going into too much de
tail, are the lack of d supply of animals
for slaughter and making into food prod
ucts for which there was O market nud
the lack Of q market f0r the products
Of the packing house from animals Of
which the supply WIS pmple, AZ en
times there was 20 be- had a full supply
OF beef cattle but the consumption. IN
this state that Wo lpplitd from Fort
Worth wac nat sufficient 30 take the out.
put, aud the 8theuf Of shipping long
distances rsaalting IN failure, The tauglt,
en- Of beef cattle had % be lessened, aud
that loft part Of the plant idle aud the
capital locked up IN Il nDn-urOdurtive.
Much of the trouble WA due % Northern
competition, for the rates were against
the local packery, and In favor Of the
Kansas City ami Chicago concerns and
many of the natural markets Of the Fort
Worth packing house being COMMON
points, the Northern packerieG could Slip
in their output NJ no disadvantage Of
freight ratios, aud as they were larger
and because q the extended markets
could run o. full capadiy MI the time.
they could AID DID pat fhelr products az
less price, and hY uudersolling the
local packery gradually forced Il from
the market. This and The feci that The
people 0f Texas are beef rniahrs aud hog
Gators, tells the whole storg Of the failure
that need be made public.
MORE TEXAS HOGS WANTED.
Never 20 the history Of the opera
lions 81 fine packing house was there
an adequate supply " Texas raised hogs
and they were brought from Kansas and
he Indian Territory The disadvantage
81 this must Be apparent - all. for tho
packiua house paid freight on the ~
Der cent " loss that Represents the I've
hog and the meat products that be fur
nishes when dead and prepared Tor hu.
man consumption The packery could
aaughter so hogs a day. Or 1900 D
month. aud " this number the largest
months supply ever obtained from this
rate was iSOD and The average was
only 1900 II was u0t possible q bring
I've hogs from Kansas. make them into
food lose - per ceai % freight charges
ana compete with Kansas CRY; and az
soon az i was neesasafy - dzaw ~