The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-04-29
There may be rude awakeningl
The Public and the Beef Business.

Commissioner GARFIELD's report on
the beef industry is not likely to appear
among the volumes which young ladies
will take to the seashore for perusal dur
ing vacation days. It makes, on the
whole, rather dry and tedious reading.
A fairly careful review Of it leaves the
reviewer with an impression that the
Beef Trust, although a long way from
being an eleemosynary institution, is
not the utterly iniquitous affair that II
seemed TO be before the Bureau Of Corpo-
rations got after it. The official report Of
the beef business, being official, is pre-
sumably accurate and entirely reliable.
After wading through the 800 pages
of statement and figures submitted by
Mr. GARFIELD, the student Of the ques-
ton may turn TO the series Of articles
now appearing in Erervbodv's MdodFine.
In them Mr.. CHARLES EDWARD RUSSELL
approaches the Beef Trust from differ
emit point Of view. In forceful pres
entation Of statements, backed by fig
ures, he submits that the Beef Trust Is
guilty Of offenses as heinous as those
charged by Mr.. THOMAS LAWSON to the
Standard Oil System He finds the
trail of the Beef Trust strewn with ruined
communities, bank failures and sui
cides. He finds the cattle feeders Of
Iowa the losers Of 12,5OO, 900 in a single
year, and South Dakota the loser Of S1O,-
100000. He finds forty Iowa banks with
closed doors, and at least seven bank
officers dead by their own act.
This difference Of opinion regarding
the commercial morals Of the Beef Trust
springs from the difference in the point
of view. Mr.. GABFIELD's special atten-
ton was evidently given TO the question
Of the possible robbery otthe consuming
public. Mr.. RUSSELL Apr caches the
question from the point Of view Of the
interests Of those who supply the cattle
converted into beef by the slaughter
houses and packers. Mr.. GARFIELD
does not find that the Beef Trust is ma
king any exorbitant or unreasonable
profit on its beef. Mr.. RUSSELL finds
that its methods threaten the ruin Of
cattle raisers and feeders, and that many
dave already been ruined. This is a
matter Of great public concern, inssmuch
as it threatens most serious diminution
Of the supply. II Mr. RUssELL's state
ments are correct, and his arguments
logical, the greatest danger which threat
ems consumers is the reduction OF the
herds Of the West. II there is only loss
in cattle raising, no cattle will be raised.
So many and such varying factors
enter into the whole question Of beef
supply and beef prices that II Is not diff
cult to reach almost any conclusion and
TO prove by figures almost anything
which an investigator may desire to
prove. II is therefore possible TO accept
as truth the findings Of both Of these
gentlemen. That the profits made by
the Beef Trust on it's sales Of beef, as
such, are fairly reasonable, may be ac-
cepted as a fact. The losses sustained
by cattle raisers, as shown by Mr..
RUSSELL, may also be accepted as proved
by his figures. Assuming that his state
ments are not entirely without founda-
ton, the beef question appears to be not
so much a question Of the present cost
as it is whether there will not be a de-
cadence Of the cattle industry by which
a greatly lessened supply would result
in a marked enhancement Of retailing
prices.
Mr.. RUssELLs interesting articles offer
every indication Of the entire good faith
Of the writer. They also point clearly
TO a careful study Of the matter from his
point Of view. Some Of his allegations
regarding the private car lines, railway
rates and icing charges appear quite
unanswerable. Yet one OF his major
propositions, that Of ruin 10 the cattle
industry through loss Of profit in cattle
raising, as a result Of packers monop-
oily, does not seem to be fully supported.
Its true that Mr. RUBsEIL makes no such