Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1919-01-23
INQUIRY UNFAIR,
SWIFT CHARGES
Head of Packing Firm, at
House Hearing, Accuses
Heney
DENIES LARGE PROFITS
Says Nothing Is Wrong With
Meat Industry Except Pub.
lie Prejudice
DENIES LARGE PROFITS

Washington, Jan. 23.--Louis L Swift,
president of Swift & CO. today testified
before the House committee hearing on
peneling legislation, recommended by
the Federal Trade Commission TO regu-
late the packing industry. Mr. Swift
said the Commissions report and the
Investigation percedng it were unfair,
He said that Careless. offhand" state
ments by Francis j. Heney. who CON
Quoted the Commissions inquiry. such
a that the packers profits were greater
under Food Administration contrO
than previously. did the business much
injustice. He said that Swift & Co
made only lie per cent on each dollar
of sales in the fiscal year 1918. when
they were under control of the Food Nd
ministration. although in the year before
they had made 3.9S per cent.
Concerning statements that Swift
Co were spending one million dollars
month in an advertising campaign to in
fiuence public opinion. he submitted an
affidavit to show that the firms I otal
publicity expenditures had bee Sl'ooO-
900 in twelve months ended November
2, 1918.
Denies Price Fixing Collusion
Mr.. Swift like the president Of Ar
mour & Co, denied any collusion be-
tween the packers. and said they were
keenly in competition with one ahothrr'
Legislation such as that proposed IN
the pending bills, he said. would crlp-
Pile the packing industry ana aud u
the present cost of foodstuhs. tie as
serted the investigation of the Federal
Trade Commission was grossly unfair
to the industry. in that it gave no OPP
portunity to the packers to refute biased
testimony and that the pending blils
were based on misconceptions ana
amounted virtually to class legislation.
After an investigation Of more than
n year" Mr.. Swift said. the trade
commission is unable to deny that the
profits of the packers are so small that
they could be wiped out without aitect-
ing the price of livestock or the price OF
meat by more than a fraction OF a cent
a pound 1t is difficult to see how this
profit could be lower. and there is no
business that is conducted on such a
narrow margin
Actually Lose Sometimes, lie says
This profit also nuctuates from week
to week and often becomes loss. i'ur-
ing twenty-one weeks Of the year ehueu
June 80. 1918. for example. Swift & GO.
either made no money at all or suffered
an actual loss on their beef operations.
II there were Il combination II would
be worthless If it could not prevent
losses and If it would not result in more
than a bare minimum living profit.
THE only thing that is wrong with
the packing business is the public inn
preston that something is wrong. II
that impression, which has been created
by Measurements and the inflamng of
public prejudices could be remedied the
need for all this legislation also would
be remedied.
There is just as much sense in the
railroads building hotels to take care
of their passengers for several days
as there is in their operating branch
packing houses"
Concerning the alleged one-sidedness
OF the Federal trade commission inves-
tigation, Mr.. Swift said:
Weren't Allowed to Explain Letters
SCRAPS of paper and certain letters
from files We're taken TO maintain their
contention, whereas, if we had had an
opportunity to explain or introduce evil
dence we could have shown TO any fair
minded person that there j. real COM
petition in the business and that no !r-
regular arrangements exist
Referring to statement by Chair
man CoIver. Of the trade commission,
that the large packers forced wholesale
grocers to buy their breakfast foods on
Mr.. Swift said that Armour who was
in the grain business before he entered
the meat business. was the only packer
who handled breakfast foods, End that
IL Armour should threaten to cut off "a
patron from meat unless he bought
breakfast foods. IT would he grand
opportunity for Swift x Co. 70 get
new customer.
Levy Mayer, counsel for Armour & Co. .
also was on the stand discussing the
constitutionallty of the bill and the COM
missions inquiry.
When the Federal Trade Commission .
took testimony and found verdict Of .
guilty against the packers, do you
mean to say your clients got no chance .
TO reply" asked Representative SAN /
ders. of Louisiana.
Absolutely none" Mr. Mayer said
81 made three trips 10 Washington TO
plead for the opportunity, but they re-
fused. and gave no reason. They sent
scores and scores Of examiners 10 go
through the files OF Armour & Co. and
took many letters,
The witness said a mistaken inference .
drawn from one letter referring 70 an
agreed price on lard compound was due
10 the failure of the commission to take
other letters that would have explained
the price was fixed by the food admins
tration and not by the packers.
IF YOU can regulate private indus
try. such as the packing plants, then YOU
can regulate the manufacture of hair F
pins, rubber boots or anything else" he
asserted.
Representative Barkley, of Kentucky, .
came 10 the defense Of the commission
and sought to have Mr.. Mayer say
whether the commission had acted i'll
legally.
mo law covers the case said Nj
Mayer. but think the commission act .
ed unfairly, and anything that is unfair
is Illegal"