The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1910-01-29
BOYCOTTING BEEF.

Probably the most remarkable protest against
the high prices of food products ever uttered was
that which found expression last week in the or
ganization of eve Don't Eat Meat" societies. In
Washington an Anti-Food Trust league was found
ed with the intention of making its membership
nationwide. About the same time in Cleveland an
organization of some 5000 members pledged itself
to buy no meat for period of thirty days. From
these organizations, clubs societies, the boy
colt movement against the meat trust has spread
from one end of the nation to the other. 1t is
Just protest too but we fear no practical good will
result.
In the first place, it is hard to keep alive suf
icient interest in a subject of even so great i'm
portance as the cost of living to make people I'M
dergo hardship voluntarily. As long as they can
buy meat, if only chuck steaks or the humble Ham
burger people are not likely to take kindly to the
deprivation, especially when the good to be accom-
plished is highly predetermined.
Again, if the abstention from meat for any
length of time by any considerable portion of the
population should result in general reduction in
the price, it would likely be accompanied by an
increase in price of the commodities consumed in
place of meat For be it known the people of
America have to eat, and if they don't eat meat,
they must draw their sustenance from some other
source And the articles which are the most com
mon substitutes for meat-eggs, milk and butter
are already too high in price to warrant any great
er demand being made upon available supplies
Furthermore, the boycott has been declared an
illegal instrument; if union men may not publish
lists of unfair" firms under the head eve Don't
Patronize" it is plain that the people cannot le-
ultimately organize and publicly proclaim boy
colt against the products of the beef trust
But laying that feature of the question aside
until the aforesaid beef trust sees fit to have an in
junction issued against the common people or
ganizing boycott against its products and grant
ing the almost impossible ability of the people to
organize a thorough boycott against the use of
meat until prices have been reduced to reason
able figure, the blow will be felt more keenly bv
the retailer and small butcher than by the trust.
The large packing houses are in position to hold
their finished products for many months. refusing
to buy stock the hoof as long as their cold stor
age warehouses are full. The cattle raiser TINS
would suffer heavy loss for lack of a market. The
employees of the packing houses would lose much
from enforced idleness. The small butcher would
find his trade curtailed that he might be forced
to retire from business, condition which the meat
trust would be sure to take advantage of when the
boycott against its products was declared off.
1t seems plain that the fellows who are eniovinp
an inordinate profit from the production of beef
are the ones who would be able to withstand the
shock of a boycott, while those whose profits are
small would be forced out of business or into bank
ruptcy by 1t. The boycott to be effective would
have to cover the nation, and then it's effects
would be to make the small dealer the small
butcher and the producer of live stock the victims
of the large and wealthy concerns, which would
simply lay back and wait for the storm to blow
over.
1t may be, however, that the beef trust although