The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-01-13

few hands whose control is rapidly being extended and fortified by dom ination of the meat industry of a large part of the world. It is also being rapidly extended to other important food products. The producers have long known that these processes were at work. They have believed that il had continued to exist and that it operated to their disadvantage. They differed among themselves In their beliefs as to the degree and character Of the monopoly and as to the reme- dies for it. They did not differ in their conviction that the great and sudden fluctuations that occurred in great central markets were due to manipulation and not to the normal operation Of economic laws. They knew that these violent fluctuations usually meant huge profits to the buyers and serious loss or even ire tr-vable disaster to the seller, whose live stock once shipped to such market must be quickly sold to avoid the mounting cost of care and keep But 1t was not until the price of ev- cry other essential (and many non essential commodity except live stock had mounted in response to the ex- traordinary demands of war that there swept over the farms and ranches of the country a great wave of realization as to the full effect of the autocratic power entrenched at the central markets and of determin- alton to submit to it no longer. The present situation is the result After strenuous opposition from the pack CTS the federal investigation was or dered, the facts disclosed and the remedies are now under consldera- tion.
 Statements published by the pack CTS tn advertisements and special ar ticles as to the fraction of the meat consumed in America which is han dled by them. and the implied or ex- pressed conclusion that therefore a monopoly control cannot be exercised. are derived from figures which in clude not only local butchering but also meats eaten on the same ranch or within the same farming com munity which produced them. Such statements are misleading The fact that five large Chicago packers com pletely dominate all supplies of meats moving from the producing districts through the great markets to the eyer-increasing city and industrial populations remains indisputable and has been confirmed by the investga tions and reports of the Federal gov ernment.
 The accumulated tolls levied upon this traffic and charged to producers and consumers alike are now meas ured by the hundreds of millions of dollars. The economic power rep resented by this wealth, one sup plementing the other, draws within it's sphere and ultimately swallows q succession of one-time competing in terests, small packers, independent butchers, stockyards. special car lines, cold storage facilities. cattle loan banks. trade papers. canneries and other marketing facilities. The con- trol of the market is accomplished by the control of the very instruments by which marketing is carried on.
 It is to meet this situation that the recommendations of the Federal Trade Commission are directed. These recommendations have been widely misrepresented. They are not radi- cal. They are not as radical as many have expected and advocated They do not propose that the Federal government take over and operate the packing houses and the >ntire distributing system They propose merely that the instruments and agencies Of monopoly shall be taken out of the control of those who would profit by monopoly. These agencies are the private stock and re- frigerated car lines, the stockyards and refrigerated storage terminals In the great cities. These recommend ations have been considered by many farmers and producers organiza tons and have been approved by every such organization that has yet con sidered them. Their adoption will In no way lessen the manufacturing efficiency of the packers nor their utilization of animal by-products. Nevertheless, 1t must be clearly rec ognized that efficiency is not the is- sue. Even if it were, Is 1t likely that the highest degree of efficiency either has been or can in the future be maintained in an industry which has been or can in the future ba maintained in an industry which has no real competition and where con trol of management goes so largely by inheritance? Other autocra- cies have before this made claim to efficiency which could not stand the test Of competition with freedom and democracy. The organizing net profits towering into many millions, and the silent, unceas- ing extension of power into new :elds here and abroad, are the answer to advertisements showing the packers rolling dollars to the farmers, whose average net return does not equal the wages of the mechanic. sFiguDes showing small profit per dollar of sales or per pound of product are i what we have right to expect and l demand in an industry handling as I valuable material with as rapid a 1 turnover and with as little altera- l ton by manufacture as are neat and other basic foods.
 But the issue is not one of efflci- ency The issue before the jury of the country is of economic liberty in America It has been conclusively esta blish ed-indeed It can fairly be said to be admitted-that a combina- tion in restraint of trade has existed between the big packers In state ment issued by Swift & Co. on August I1S, 1918, it is said: The beef pools that is.-the arrangements whereby the quantity of beef that could be