Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1919-12-20
PALMER'S TRIUMPH"
OVER THE PACKERS

Whether II Is More Than an Empty
Victory VIII Appear II the Price OF
Meat and Groceries Comes Down
WHETHER the enthusiastic delight of
w Attorney General Palmer over the
settlement of the suits against the five
big packing companies is justified will
not appear for year or two.
The packers, while insisting that they
have violated no law, have consented to
confine their activity as corporations to
the slaughtering of sheep and beef cat
tie and to the handling of eggs, poultry
and cheese and the byproducts made from
the parts of the meat carcasses not suit
| able for food. They will dispose of their
| interests in the stockyards, in the rail-
roads, in the retail meat business and
in the handling of cereals and other
| substitutes for meat The so-called
packers trust is to be disorganzed,
much as the oil trust was disorganized
a few years ago.
Mr.. Palmer, as result of the COM
promise, says that "the price of meat is
within the control of the people them
selves" 1t does not appear exactly what
he means by this or how the people will
have greater control over the price of
meat than they always have had
Assuming that the men Interested in
the packing industry do not r'tain a
financial interest in the stockyards and
that those yards are controlled and man.
aged by men more interested in getting
a good price for livestock for the benefit
of the stockraisers than in forcing down
the price in the interest of the packers,
the chief beneficiaries will be the stock
raisers and not the consuming public.
The stockraisers have complained for
years that they were at the mercy of the
packers and that they had to sell their
stock at less than fair market price.
Now, if the freeing of the stockyards
from the control of the packers is to
satisfy the stockraisers, they will get
better prices than in the past and the
packers who have to pay that price will
hand it on to the consuming public. 1t is
difficult to understand how if meat on
the hoof is to cost more meat in the
retail store is to cost less.
Perhaps Mr.. Palmer can tell US.
The packers, who have in the past sue
cessfully defended the legality of their
business and who still insist that they
have violated no law, admit that they
have agreed to the compromise in re-
Spouse to public opinion. They are busi-
ness men and not, t,sentimentalists. Some
other business men may be cynical
enough to assume that there are sound
commercial reasons back of the COM
promise and that the packers know just
what they are doing and why they are
doing it. If they have not handed Mr..
Palmer large and bitter lemon, many
hard headed observers will miss their
guess.
! The defense of the packers is we'll
known. They have proclaimed far and
wide in the advertising columns Of the
| newspapers that their net profits on the
meat they handled was one-half of
per cent. They have even gone so far
as to say that they sold the meat for
less than they paid for the whole carcass
and that this small percentage of profit
was made on the byproducts. So far as
| is known these assertions have never
been disproved.
Yet Mr.. Palmer is calling attention to
the enormous increase in the assets Of
the five big packing companies as though
that were proof that they were making
illegitimate profits. He says that the
net worth of the companies has grown
from S92 2,000, 900 in 1907 to $479, 100000
in 1919, and that, in the same period,
S105 100000 has been paid in cash divi-
dends. He says further that only
S89,OO0,OO0 of their net worth at the
present time is represented in increased
Capitalization.
These figures, however, prove nothing
more than that the packers have been
conducting a large and growing business.
The size of the business is indicated by
Mr.. Palmer's statement that the sales
for 1918 amounted to $4,000, 900 ,00c. A
net profit of per cent on this sum
would not be unreasonable. This would
amount to $160000,000 A profit of per
cent would be $92,000,000.
No retail merchant could continue in
business on so narrow a margin. Yet
the demagogues who for years have been
trying to convince the public that it is
a crime to do a large amount Of busi-
ness cite the gross profits of the packers
as proof that something is wrong. They
say that there is profiteering in any busi-
ness which earns $50000000 or $780,
100000 in year, especially if that bust
ness is in any way connected with the
necessities of life.
We are not defending the packers.
They are able to attend to that for them
selves. But those thinking persons who
wish to understand the situation will do
we'll to refrain from condemning big bus
mess merely because it is big and to
analyze the figures before deciding that
a corporation which has an annual turn.
over of billions is robbing the public
merely because there are millions Oh
ny.oft in its annual turnover.