Norwich bulletin., 1917-12-25
General Denial by
 ). Ogden Armour
OF CHARGES MADE AT MEAT IN-
 DUsTRY INVESTIGATION
WELCOMES AN INQUIRY
Refutes Statement That Armour G
 Go. Had Been Able to Increase It's
 Stock From s2o,ooo, 900 to $1oo, ,ooo, 900.

Chicago, Dec. 24.-J. Widen Ar
 mour tonight said the statement made yesterday by counsel for the federal
 trade commission which is investi- eating packing plants. to the effect that Armour and Company did not disclose it's ownership of an interest in the Chicago Stock Yards until fed eral agents seized correspondence be- | tween F. H. Prince of Boston and Mir. Armour was controverted by the rec ords, MT. Armour said:
 What Records Show. "Our records show that on October 30, we delivered to an examiner for l the federal trade commission, Hravitz by name. written statement. com piled at his request. Under the head ing Miscellaneous corporations" there was included the specific Item, show 1 ing that we had acquired by purchase
 one-fifth of the capital stock of the | Chicago Stock Yards Company" MT. Armour said the charge that Armour and Company had been able
 to increase it's stock from. $20,0O0,00O l to s1oo,o00,o00 as a result of it's in i vestment in the stock yards company was not true. In 1910, the time the stock yards stock was purchased, he said, the combined capital and sur ! plus of Armour and Company was s93,9s3, ,313.
 Answers Two Other Charges. MT. Armour answered two other charges pI0V1OuSly nldOe at the | ing in Washington. saying:
 Tt is charged that our dealing in | butter, eggs, poultry. cheese, fruits. | fish and vegetables is an attempt of i alleged nonopo1ies of these#products. | I deny that our entering in these kin l dred lines has had the effect of in | creasing the cost of meat and unqual- | flied state that our aim and result in entering these lines of business were 1 to decrease the cost of distribution 1 and marketing of meat.
 I No Attempt to Conceal Ownership. I The charge that an attempt had been made by Armour and Company l to conceal true ownership in subsid- 1 iary and auxiliary companies by hay 1 ing the stock in such concerns held
 in the name of individuals. MT. Ar | mour said was untrue. He explain Lea that the laws of Illinois forbade an Illinois corporation to own stock in | other corporations, although almost 1 ownership.
 | Tt has therefore become neces- i sary," added Mir Armour, "that we
 permit such stock to be held by indi- 1 viduals for the benefit of our corpora tion; and in doing this we have done
 what we believe is the practice of | every large corporation incorporated
 under the laws of Illinois. whose bus l mess is other than local within the state. It was not done to conceal the l fa cts from the government the public. The only alternative would be l to withdraw from the state. Loyalty
 to Chicago and Illinois, in which I re- l side, has always caused me to feel | that Armour and Company should re-
 main an Illinois corporation. Welcomed Investigation.
 "we welcomed this Investigation feeling that it would give the public ! information to which it is entitled, | showing the legitimate reasons for | the present high cost of meat and we | have thrown open to the commission our books and records, and stand l ready to aid them in every way pos l sible along constructive lines"