Omaha daily bee., 1921-05-28
Nebraska Solon
Asserts Packer
Laws Necessary
Mclaughlin Denies Charge
That Retailers Responsible
For High Meat Prices;
Cites 19I9.l92l Costs.
BY E. c. SNYDER.
Washington Correspondent Omaha Bee

Nuhu1Ugttu NOfHSsVthhSht o""hn ANVs
Washington, May 27. - (Specia
Telegram) - Congres man Nc
Laughlin of the Fourth Nebraska
district, who has given deep study
to packer legislation from the view,
point OF the farmer and stock raiser
as a member OF the house committee
on agriculture which reported the
packer bill now under consideration
by the house, held the attention oi
that body in support OF the meas
ure today. He insisted that, after
reading the thousands of pages OF
testimony taken bys the committee
during the past and present session
of congress and examining the re-
port OF the federal trade commits
sion, the necessity for supervision
legislation affecting the packing in
dustry became necessity. Among
other things, Mclaughlin said:
mo one desires to hinder or en-
barrass any person in the conduct
of fair and legitimate business. The
proposed legislation is intended to
be constructive and helpful, taking
into account the interests OF the pro-
ducer, the distributor and the con-
sumer, to the end that each may re-
ceive Just and proportionate consid-
eration.
Denies Charge. +
"The charge made by Everett c.
Brown and others TO the effect that
wholesale prices had come down to
a prewar level and that the retail
ers, are wholly responsible for pres
cnt high prices is not true to fact.
81 have recently compared the
prices on 50 retail products i'll the
city OF Washington. including seven
packer products, and have found that
these items are AZ per cent lower
now than they were two years ago
and SO per cent lower than they were
one year ago. find also in COM
pairing the prices of stock on foot
and the prices charged by the pack
crs for their finished products, that
while the packers paid $l5.85 hun
dred for cattle on foot during April,
1919, and only paid $S,25 hundred
in April, 1921. yet the wholesale
price of the packers beef products
were only 336 per cent lower in
April, 1921, than they were i'll April,
1919, notwithstanding the fact that
the packers paid 90 per cent more
for cattle on foot i'll 1919 than they
did in 1921.
Retail Drop Greater.
Making the same comparison of
pork and pork products, we find that
in April. 1919, hogs on foot brought
an average OF $20.45, while i'll April,
1921, they had fallen to prewar
prices. namely S.S5, or reduction
Of $500 hundred pounds. In
other words, the packer paid 100 per
cent more for hogs on foot in 1919
than he did in 1921 for the same
week. Comparing the retail prices
for the same time. taking all OF the
figures from the National Provision
er, the organ of the Institute OF
American Meat Packers, we find
that the wholesale prices of pork
and pork products were only sos
per cent less in April, l9Zl, than they
we're in April, 1919. These figures
show that both the wholesaler and
The retailer have dropped prices, but |
the drop in retail prices is greater
than the drop in
wholesale prices.
mo one contends" he said, that |
he proposed legislation will cure all
81 the ills of our distributing, but We
10 believe that such supervisory |
cgislation, supplemented by the ad-
tantagc of cooperative efforts |
among the producers and consumers,
eventually will result in such |
changes to the present marketing |
system as will meet the needs and |
.cGuirements Of the entire public"