The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-03-03
POOR BEEF TRUST.
Report of Neat Industry InVes-
tigatiOn Turned In.
Shows Packers Have Been Max
ing Almost Nothing.
ACTUALLY LOST MONEY
One Month When Prices We're
at the Highest
Managed to Keep Up by Profits
on Private Cars.

To the Senate and House of Represen-
tatiVes:
transmit herewith a report from the
secretary of commerce and labor upon
that portion of the resolution of the
mouse OF representatives adopted March
z, 1904, having to do with the prices of
cattle and dressed beef, the margins be-
tween such prices and the organization
conduct and profits of the corporations
engaged in the beef packing industry
In view of the fact that the depart
ment of justice is now engaged upon
other matters involved in the resolution
the secretary of commerce and labor
can not at this time report thereupon-
THEODORE ROOSEVELT.
White House, March 3, 1905.
The report of the commissioner of
corporations is to the effect that six
companies, Armour & Co. swift & Co.
Norris & Co. the National Packing
company, the SchWarzschiId & Sulz-
berger Co and the Cudahy Packing
company, slaughtered in the year 1903
about per cent of the total indicated
slaughter in the United States; that
the average net profit in 1908 for
three of the companies was 80 cents
per head; that the year 1902, instead
OF being one of exOrbitant profits, was
less profitable than usual; that during
the month when prices of beef was
the highest some at least of the lead
ing packers were actually losing
money on every head slaughtered.
The changes in the margin between
prices of cattle and beef are in them
selves no indications what ever of the
change in profits, says the report
Prices and conditions for the years
1902, 1903 and 1904 are reviewed and
the conclusions are stated that the six
panies especially discussed are ap-
parently not over capitalized; that the
percentage of profit on the gross vol
uIne of business is comparatively
small and that during the years 1902,
1903 and 1904 Swift & Co.'S profits
have not exceeded per cent of the
total sales; Cudahy & Co. is stated at
1.S6 per cent for 1904 and 2.3 per cent
for 1903 With reference to private
car lines in the packing industry it is
stated that the profit is a very liberal
one a net return of from 1 4 to II per
cent being indicated, but it is added
that reckoned on the basis of dressed
beef transported, the profit would add
but little to the cost of beef to the
consumer. The profit of one concern,
Cudahy Packing company, on its in
vestment in cars was as high as %
per cent in the year.
Further it is stated that the six
principal packing concerns, while they
slaughtered but 5 per cent of the to-
tai cattle killed in 1903 they slaugh-
tered nearly 90 per cent of the cattle
killed in eight leading western pack
ing CenterS, that they control a very
large percentage of the trade in beef
IN InG east ana InaI they
furnish New York about z 5 per cent,
Boston more than S5 per cent, Phila-
delphia about so per cent; Pittsburg
more than so and Baltimore about so
per cent.
The report in conclusion says that
the National Packing company men,
toned as one of the big six is a
merger of various packing plants, but
except for that concern there appears
to be no general interownership of
stock among the six principal COM
panies.
A summary of the report follows:
THAT six packing companies-Armour
& Co, Swift & Co, Morris &, Co., the
National Packing company, the
Schwarzschild & Sulzberger company
and the Cudahy Packing company fire.
quently designated in the trade as the
big siX''-slaughtere in the year 1913
5,521. .697 head of cattle out of a total in
dicated slaughter in the United States
of 12500,000 head, or about As per cent
That the true average net profit for
three companies-the Armour Swift
and Schwarzschild & &Sulzberger-for the
II months ending June 80. 1903 as shown
by their actual bookkeeping records.
was go cents per head, not including in
cidental profits mentioned below.
That the year 1902, instead of be-
ing one of exorbitant profits, as has
been commonly supposed, was less
profitable than usual. The report
says. in fact that during the months
WAAGh GAACSS u DGCl were the highest,
some, at least. of the leading packers
were actually losing money on every
head of cattle slaughtered
That the changes in the margin
between the prices of cattle and the
prices of beef are in themselves no in
dication whatever of the changes in
the profits of the beef business.
THAT the margin between the pric&
OF cattle and the price of beef durifg
the year 1903, instead of being un-
usually high, as popularity supposed,
was for each half of that year lower
than the margin for any correspond
ing half year since 1898, and that the
increase in the margin for the second
half of 1908, over the first -half was
no greater than the similar change in
other years. An average margin. COW
ering total killings of cattle by most
OF the packing houses in nve leading
western markets and sales of beef atl
twenty-four cities having a total popu-
lation of about 100000 persons.
was S2.S1 per hundred weight for
January to June. 1902; S2-S3 for July
to June 1903: S2.41 for the second
half of 1903. and s2-s3 for the first
half of 1904
That conditions in 1902 were abnor-
NAL, and that cattle prices for 1903 and
1904 can not fairly be compared with
that year. Great prosperity of the |
from 1889 to 1902 apparently led |
to a considerable increase in the per !
capita consumption of beef The prac-
teal failure of the corn crop of 1901 |
induced many cattle feeders to send