Bisbee daily review., 1905-04-25

Wholly MtSleading-Extent of Trust
 Controi-AIl Mention of Hogs Ex-
 eladed From the Document.
 Commenting in the New York Amer
 ican on the Garfield beef trust report,
 Charles E. Russell shows how far from
 the facts are the conclusions arrived
 st by MT. Garfield.
 The report says: That six packing
 companies-Armour & Co, Swift X Co,
 Morris X Co. Cudahy X Co, the Ma. tional Packing company, the Schwarz- schild X Sulzberger company-frequeut
 ly designated in the trade as the "bia six" slaughtered in the year 5,J21, ,697 head of cattle of a total indicated slaughter in the United States of F.. 500,000 head, or about 45 per cent"
 The Facts.-Nobody knows how many cattle were slaughtered in the United States in 1903. There are no statistics to show it. Mr Garfield's indicated slaughter" is mere guess. The six firms named are only a small part of the real beef trust. Thus the cor poration of Swift & Co. is not the real Swift firm most actively engaged in the beef trust; the corporation of Armour 6 Co. is only one of fifty names under which the real Armour activities are conducted: Morris & Co have a score of aliases; the National Packing company is a mere mask for nefarious operations by other corpora tions Mir Garfield takes no account of these. He has recognized only q few of the disguises, not the men be hind the disguises. To give an illus tration: The firms of John F. Squires & Sons and North & Co, ill Boston, continue to be heavy buyers and pack CTS of cattle and hogs. They figure in MT. Garfeld's calculations as outside of the trust: their operations are in- cluded in the 5 per cent cattle not slaughtered by the trust. But both houses are owned absolutely by the Swift interests-not the Swift X Co. of Mir. Garfeld's report, but the Swift that is engaged in managing the trust These are only two of many houses in different parts of the country that have similar ownership among the trust managers. As a matter of fact, the real trust, of which Mir Garfield seems to be wholly ignorant, slaughter cd about so per cent of the cattle in this country in 1905 That is apparent from the fact that the trust owns or controls all the conSid- erable slaughtering plants in the coun- try except a few that have local trade. 1t does not own these plants under trust names. but the ownership is none the less complete.
 Extract From the Report-"That the true average net profit for three com panies-Armour, Swift and Schwarz- schild & Sulzberger-for the twelve months ended June 30, 1903, as shown by their actual bookkeeping records, was 90 cents head (cattle), not includ- ing incidental profits mentioned be- low"
 The Facts.-This is the packers as- sertion prepared for public consump- ton and frequently given out by trust attorneys and champions. You will find it in numerous statements to the press made by Mir Louis Swift (see Chicago Tribune, March, 1904). It Is undoubt- eiiy true that the profits Of the trust gre much greater on the ''incidentals" Coy which AIr. Garfield means byprod- ucts) than they are on dressed beef. But the estimate on dressed beef is wholly misleading. The 90 cents profit refers only to dressed beef as shipped and sold. 1t does not include meat products that are not classed as the dressed beef of commerce. such as the tongue, the cheek meat, tails, necks and so on. It entirely excludes these with the distinctive byproducts. such as grease, fertilizers and hides. Counting the meat products that the report ig- nores, the real profit on each steer slaughtered is on the average 8, and this does not include anything but the meat in the carcass.
 From the Report.-''That the changes in the margin between the prices of cattle and the prices of beef are in themselves no indication whatever of the changes in the profits of the beef business"
 The Facts.-This may mean anything. What Mir Garfield probably wished to convey was the idea that if the trust forces down the prices of cattle on the hoof and forces up the price of beef to the consumer that does not indicate that the trust makes any additional profit. The reasoning seems a trifle ob- scure, but I suppose Mir. Lorimer did not explain the mystery, and Mir. Gar field did not think 1t worth while to ask about It. In other lines of business if the price of the raw material be d. minished IS per cent and the price of the product be enhanced 10 per cent the manufacturer makes an additional profit It may be different in the beef business, but it Is hard to sec why, un- less the trust gave away its enhanced profits to the Y. NJ. c. A.
 From the Report-''Tbe report deals with nothing but beef and cattle, the