The Washington times., 1919-01-25
FL. HENEY CROSS
EXAMINES ARMOUR
Continued from First Page,

CONTINUED from First Page,
which packers "could protect their
industry" in some special case but
that II there was 1t was not a stand
ing arrangement. He denied abso!
lutely that he aid Swift had appor-
toned dairy territory among them
selves or that between Swift and
Armour Company the butter mark eft
could be influenced. J. : - :
"We might have a slight inf,uence
on the butter market, but not nnucb >,
he testified. The packers sold about
go per cent of"the oleo-rnarrarine ON
the marketSrhe said, and Jelkey and
Company, original manufacturers az
this product, about % per cent. the
remainder being divided up among
about seven or eight other hackers,
He denied the Implication that the
amount of butter sold by Swift snd
Armour affected the oleo market. eyI-
IDENTIFY the point Of Heney,s cross
Questioning. -
Won Sehrenek ON Stand.
Otto Won Schrenck, manager os The
board Of directors. Of. the. National Pro-
vision Company. taking the stand be-
fore Armour, testified that he knew
nothing Of the alleged 5000 paid to the
late George Mccarthy. editor. Of the
packers publication, which was sun
posed to be contributed by the .Big
Five" and testified that Mccarthy had
held the complete certificate OF every
one. Heney read into the records some
correspondence tending to show that
THAT dherent PERCENTAGES of this
amount had been contributed by "S''
"A" "Tew" and &C." Both Arrnonr ani
Won Schrenck denied any knowIedse of
this after Heney had stated that these
percentages were similar to those, of
POOL gI - -
Mt has never been the policy Of
Armour &c Co to crowd out small
packers" Armour declared. 1--WE al
ways try to buy them out"
suppose you wanted to establish a
branch In town and the small pack
er refused to sell. your. policy would
pc 10 pay large prices to put him out
OF business as soon ais possible, would
you not?" Heney suggested.
Il don't know what we'd do. II
would depend on circumstances.n :
Armour said small packers were
making far larger profits than the
great packing houses. :.
And so," Heney commented, "ti1ey
ers." - -.
...s Work Not STEADY.
Armour contested this statement.
They might pay higher wages for a
day or two, he. said, but their work
was not steady. ~
Ell
the statement that the development
Of by-products had brought down the
price OF meat to the consumer with
figures given a Congressional COM
mittee In 1888 by his father, p. D.
Armour. that fhe packers profits was
$1.22 a head. testimony in 1915 that
the profit was $1.19 head, his testi-
mony that Armour & Co.'S profits
were approximately 81 a head, and
Louis Swift's testimony that the
Swift Company makes 81 head.
mo packer could do business today
on profit Of 81 a head" Armour said
II we didn't have the by-products'
profit we'd have to have more than 81
a head. On the other hand, business
might very well have been done thirty
years ago at 81 profit Expenses have
gone up since that time" p
thC idiI way " put H. lhcu,
Heney interrupted, would be to say
that the packers today are making
just as much as. they were thirty
years aso-that they have no,
brought the price down to the con
sumer, but IL it were not for the by.
products prices would be higher"
Yes. I think that is the Aetter way
to say it," Armour agreed.
But that is not what the packers
say in their advertisements," Heney
observed.
There are times, Mr.. Armour told
the Senate Committee on Agriculture
yesterday. when he, feels like giving
his business away. While testifying
on the various Federal meat control
bills he was asked by Francis J.
Heney:
ITO what do you attribute the fac,
forged ahead of the others?"
'In my mind" Armour answered
there are people who perhaps work
little harder. who take more
chances, who add more things to
their business, who go into greater
detail, and thus work out to a large
basis. Some people have the desire
for a large business Some wouldn't
have it. There are some people who
wouldn't have any business, and there
are times when ! don't blame them.
Heney asked Armour why he didn't
give 1t to him.
''If I had anything against you.
might" Armour answered.
Under Cross-Examfnation.
Mr.. Armour late yesterday after
noon submitted to being cross-exam-
ined by Mr.. Heney.
The cross-examination was entirely
peaceful. Mr.. Armour went to the
limit Of courtesy and politeness in
answering all of Heney's questions
while Heney beamed upon him from
the opposite side of the table and
propounded his inquiries with studied
tactfulness.
Heney took up organization Of the
big packing houses and retirement
from business of a large number OF
smaller concerns He drew from
Armour the admission that the cost
OF meat to the consumer would be
cheapened If slaughtering were done
nearer the point of production than
under the system of shipping the live
cattle, to Chicago. He read letters