The Washington times., 1919-01-23
Mr.. Swift's Testimony In Detail

ship, we would have been able to
secure the empty cars.
One cannot imagine the detailed at
tention required in the way of clean
illness and ventilation and proper icing
before shipment and en- route.
The smaller packers, referred to
hereafter also own some refrigerator
cars in a limited way; the railroads
also have refrigerator cars, more or
less satisfactory. 1t would be bet
ter way if the Government or the
railroads would build 5000 or 5000
or any number of beef cars and let
the small packers have the use of
them.
Branch Houses.
In his statement to the committee
on December 10. Mr.. Colver compared
our branch houses with railroad
freight houses and said that such
freight houses should be open to all
on. equal terms" He complained that
these freight houses were privately
owned by the packers and said that
1.-The use of these facilities was not
granted to competitors in the same
line OF business"
Delivered in Carload Lots.
Our branch houses are not freight
houses. They are facilities specially
constructed for efficiently conducting
our business, which involves carry
ing stocks of perishable goods for. in
some cases, considerable time. and
from which we draw the goods as
they are sold.
The goods are delivered TO us ON
track in carload lots, and we pat
them in these refrigerated ware
houses.
There is nothing to prevent the rail-
| roads providing refrigerated freight
houses for their customers il they
| want to-that is entirely another mat
ter, and they are free to do so. Even
, if the railroads were to provide re-
frigerated freight houses. as Mr..
Colver suggests, there would still re-
main the necessity for an organiza
tion to handle, sell, and deliver The
, goods in small lots the same as we
| have to do at our branch houses.
Have Branch Houses.
Any number of small packers and
| receivers have similar branch mar
kets, and there is nothing to hinder
| anyone building them who needs
them. have added up as many as
| from 800 to 500.
| Let the Government or the rail
roads build branch houses for the
| smaller packers if there is any de-
mand, but / don't think that there is.
The bill under consideration aims to
give the Government power to say
what goods shall be handled. and
what goods shall not be handled. by
! the packers. Mr.. Colver has laid great
/ emphasis on the fact that the pack
ers have taken on outside products
| to such an extent as seriously to cut
| into the business of wholesale groc-
ers.
| Can't Force Dealers.
In his statement on December 10,
Mr.. Colver. in speaking OF the hand
ling Of breakfast food, said that it
could be practically tied to the list
of his products which a deader must
have" and that packer can prac-
tically force the dealer to buy such a
product because the dealer must have
the other products handled by the
packer.
Mr.. Colver claimed that this result
ed in unfair advantage" and that 1T
resulted undoubtedly in unfair COM
petition with respect to the other
manufacturers of breakfast foods"
Swift Co. does not handle breakfast
! foods, and I think that none OF the
| other packers handle breakfast foods
| except Armour (who was in the grain
business before he was in the packing
! business). and am sure that IL Armour
| would. as stated by Mr.. Colver. refuse
TO sell the dealer other lines of goods
unless he purchased breakfast food. it
would be a great opportunity for Swnt
& Co. to secure a good customer for the
products that We handle and We would
not h" ~ take this customer-and
neitho a.. other packer
Sw.l' " 60. ,,D. not handle cof-
fee. or rice either, or other cereals.
| Salmon Packing.
In connection with the handling of
other products, Mr.. CoIvcr said on
December 20, with regard to the han
ding OF Salmon.
| I'm the last two or three years
and sine" these interests have be-
come very greatly. very heavily in
terestcd in the salmon canning bust
| ness. prices for canned salmon have
advanced very much out OF proper
! ton with other similar products. and
with no reason, no economic reason.
no reason that can be given that is
u good reason, except that control
which has come into that industry.
| think that Libby. Mcneil & Libby
'who used % be owned by Swift &
Co, but who are not now is the
principal packer, and Wilson & Go.
the only other packer that cans sal
mon.
| Statistics show that out OF a total
OF 100000 cases. Wilson G. Co, pack
ed only about 10000. and Libby only
| ABOUT $4,000. Other meat packers
do not pack salmon.
Furthermore, there is no more dan
ger of the countrys supply Of sal
mon being depleted by packers do
ing the canning than there is bv
! other interests, as the fish law. of
the respective countries protect this.
ana they are thoroughly enforced.
In No Agreement.
In conclusion, let me repeat that
""ltt q co. has no agreement, either
formal or informal, with other mack
efS concerning the division of live
stock receipts. the distribution OF
meats. or in any way which affects
i've stock or meat prices
a