Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1905-03-30
THE BEEF INVESTIGATION.
Commissioner Garfield's Failure to
Find Anything Wrong in
the Combine.

The report of Mr.. Garfield, commits
sioner of corporations, on the beef
trust, has provoked wide and for the
most part ~unfayorable comment. He
finds in brief that there is really no
trust-that is, that, though there is a
merger, there is no general interown-
| ership of stock"-that the packers have
no monopoly, as they control but As
per cent. of the business; that their
profits have been very small, and that
they are in no way responsible for the
high price of beef. Now it may be,
says the Indianapolis News (Ind.), that
Mr.. Garfield has reported the facts pre-
cisely as they are, but it will seem to
most men that he has made the case
for the packers pretty strong. The
question of what the packers make is
not important, for we all know that
they have %prospered greatly. 1t may be
that their slaughtering business is con-
Quoted on a small margin, though we
cannot think that it is SO small as two
per cent. and less on the volume of
business, as Mr.. Garfield reports. But
even if this be so, they earn from IA
to II per cent. on their private a
lines, and make good money out of
their by-products. If the trust is not
making money on it's beef its opera
lions are still obnoxious and are in re-
straint of trade.
The trust is charged with keeping
down the price of cattle and keeping
up the price of beef. Mr.. Garfield does
not think that it has done either of
these things. He finds that cattle have
been very high in price when condi-
lions warranted it, and that the price
fell sharply when conditions changed.
He also says that the price of beef fell
when the price of cattle fell. But the
people know that for years beef has
been exceedingly costly. They know,
also, and Mr.. Garfield says that this is
so, that even if the trust does not
wholly %monopolize the beef trade, it
does this in the larger cities. The trust
slaughters SO per cent. of the cattle
slaughtered at the eight leading west
ern centers. In these cities, therefore,
cattle must be sold to the big packers
eXclusively-or practically so. Here
is a chance to depress prices, whether
it is improved or not. AS to the SELL
ing OF beef, the monopoly is quite as
great. In New York the trust furnishes
rs per cent. of the beef, in Boston more
than IS per cent, in Philadelphia so
per cent, in Pittsburg more than 60
per cent, in Providence more than 30
per cent, and in other important cities
from 30 to 80 per cent. of the total beef
supplied. 1t is clearly a big seller all
over the country.
This being SO, it seems to us that it
would have been well to go into the
question of the relations between the
packers and the retail butchers. 1t is
said to be a fact that in many places
it is the practice of the trust to protect
the butchers in whatever monopoly
they may have, to discourage or pre-
vent any cutting of prices, and by as
surfing the butchers against any COM
petition to enable them to hold up the
price of beef without any reference to
the high or low price of cattle. We all
know that there is here a very power-
full, even if only a partial monopoly;
that for some reason the price of beef
continues to be extremely high, and. in
spite of Mr.. Garield's report, there is
a general belief that there is a combi-
nation somewhere that is working
against the interests of the people. We
would say, further, that bookkeeping
is a very uncertain business. You have
to know on what basis charges and
credits are made before you can know
whether profits are large or small.
When a corporation is engaged in
many kinds of business, as in this case.
it is easy to shift items In such a way
as to make it appear that the profits of
one business are either larger or small
err than they are. We remember how
the anthracite coal roads mixed IN
coal prices and freight rates. On the
whole, we fear that there is a good
deal more in this beef trust than Mr..
Garfield found.