Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1919-02-21
Mr.. L. F. Swift, President Of

Swift & Company. made the fol-
lowing comments with regard to /
MIR. Hoover,s letter to the Pfesi-
dent of the packing Industry
Il am naturally greatly in
terested in MIR. Hoover's letter to
the President, which, was written
last September, and welcomes if
as All honest expression of q +,
ION about the packing house -
uation. | am only sorry that
Mr.. Hoover had not the oppor-
tunity to avail himse of the in
form ton brought out at the r.
cent Congressional hearings in
Washington.
The principal issue seems to
be whether or not there is mo-
nopoly and | believe i VAS clear
demonstrated al these lleari >, <
that the large packers are in ac-
tive competition with each OTHER,
There are absolutely no agree
nentS among the five largest
packers to control prices. ard
they together handle less than
forty per cent Of the meat SUD.
ply of the country. The larges;
company handles only twelve
per cent Of the total meat supply
and less than twenty-five pei
cent Of even the output that ART
under .. S. Inspection.
There about two hundred an(
seventy packing concerns, be
sides those operated by the FIVE
largest, that are under Fedora
Inspection, and hundreds of 10
cal houses that are not subiec
to inspection. All large cite
have packing houses that con
pete directly with the five larg
est. Sonic of their representa-
tiyes appeared at the hearing
: III v asliington and stated tina
they were prospering, aud tia
there was fair and open compel.
ton in the industry.
| have publicly stated that w
have no serious objection to bt
ing relieved of our interest i
refrigerator cars and stock yard
But we have pointed out that
E is decidedly questionable whethe
any efficiency or benefit can /
S gained by such procedure. "
would also call attention to til
S fact that during the recent hear
. ings. 10 evils needing CORE,
ton have been brought to lgl
in connection with packer owne
S ship of these facilities,
| quite agree with Mr.. Honvt
that there is no reason for til
$ Government to take over til
branch houses of the packer.
but | do not feel that sufticiet
consideration has been given t
the question Of handling othe
products than meats. Swift
Company handles only a fe,
such products, and they are dis
tinctly related to our business
either as by-produCts Of til
packing houses. or as coed
which eau be economically Ian
T died through our extensive dis
tributing organization.
| hardly think that tile Gov
ernment should assume autlorit
to dictate what products an
business concern may or may no
handle. There is not only II,
need for such a step in conuec
ton with the packing business
but it would act as a dangelou
precedent which might be ex
tended to all other industries.
! It is little difficult for me IL
reconcile Mr.. HoQver's criticism
OF the fact that large packer.
have eliminated middleman an(
gone direct to the retailers Will
fthe genera opinion that markp.
Ing should be as direct as po>y;.
bic from producer to consumer
| think it will be conceded that
If we have eliminated unreces-
sary middlemen this has been
to the advantage of the public
a large.
Since there is no monoao1y.
the facts do not justify the state
ment that as time goes on this
efficiency cannot fail to dimin-
ISL, aud, like all monopolies, be-
gin to defend itself by repression
rather thar by efficiency AS
long as the large packers have
to use their utmost efforts IN
competition with each other and
with hundreds Of smaller cont
Germs to earn their profits of only