The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1905-03-03
NEW YORK COTTON MARKET.
NO GREAT PROFITS FOR
BEEF TRUST SAYS REPORT
0oatinued From First Page.)
MES especially discussed are apparent
not overcapitalized.
Small Percentage Of Profit.

Small percentage CT FroHE-
That the percentage Of profit on the
gross volume of business. including hog
and sheep products and other minor
commodities, is comparatively small; In
the case of Swift & Co.. during the three
years. 1902 1909, and 1904. the profits
have in n3ease exceeded per cent of
the total sales, in the case of the Cuda-
hys Packing Company for 1904. the net
profit was Is per cent of the total sales,
and in 1862 It was % per cent.
That the profit of private car lines in
the packing industry on mileage Is
very liberal one approximate computa-
lions indicating a net return of from II
per cent to about II per cent; reckoning
on the basis of dressed beef trans
ported. however, this profit would add
but little to the cost of such beef to
the consumer, the net profit from
the mileage Of private cars be-
ing computed at not more than cents
per hundred pounds of beef or, say %
cents per head Of cattle.
Active Competition.
The statement that the six large con-
Germs mentioned slaughtered IN 1903 only
about IS per cent Of the total cattle
killed in that year indicates very clear
1y the existence OF active competition
by other concerns ct least IN many
places This is chiefly explained by the
operations of a large number of small
slaughtering esta adjustments. Taking the
principal slaughtering and distributing
centers. the proportion controlled by the
six companies mentioned is much great
For instance. the six principal concerns
slaughter nearly 50 per cent of all the
ern packing centeTs. namely, Chicago,
Kansas City, South Omaha, East St.
Louis. South St. Joseph, Fort Worth,
Sioux City. and South st. Paul. In the
! same way they control a. very large
percentage of the traffic in beef in many
| large cities, particularly in the East.
Sales in Eastern Cities.
| In New York they furnish about 10
| per cent; in Boston more than IS per
cent; in Philadelphia. about so per cent
| IN Pittsburg more than 80 per cent; in
Providence more than s. per cent; in
Baltimore about so per cent, and in a
number of other important cities their
proportion ranges from 50 TO 30 per cent
| of the total beef supplied. In smaller
cities and towns il most sections of
| the country. on the other hand and even
| in large cities in some sections, their
! operations are relatively much less i'm
portant.
numerous auxiliary departments some
Aof which are virtually distinct indus
| tries, strictly belonging to the packing
| The profit on private refrigerator cars
| is that derived from the mileage paid by
| the railroads, which, roughly speaking,
| averages slightly more than three
! fourths of a cent per mile for every mile
| Travelled by refrigerator cars, whether
| loaded empty.
/ The average distance to which beef is
| TRANSPORTED from the packing house be-
/ fore consumption does not exceed 500
| miles The gross mileage received by
| the owner of the refrigerator car would
| therefore be, roughly, 81 per round trip.
Results of Investigation.
AS stated. the results Of the bureau s
| investigation indicate that the larger
| na cking companies, especially consider
| cal. are not overcapitalized- Presumptive
evidence IT; favor of fair capitalization
is found in the very concentrated hold
ings of the stocks of these companies
nearly ell of which. with the exception
| of Swift & Co., are held by the pack
ers themselves. and their families. In
| the case OF Swift & Co.. the entire
so5. 0eG GOO capital stock and so,000.oT
bonds were paid in cash and at par.
| The conclusions Of the report in re-
| gard TO the operations of private car
| lines are approximate. The bureau ar
| Fives at an average cost for refrige-
rator ear of s., 900, an average yearly
cost OF maintenance of Sis per car. and
q net profit from the mileage alone
as already stated. of from Ia per cent to
bout II T3er cent.