The Omaha morning bee. [volume] (Omaha [Neb.]) 1922-1927, 1922-12-13
Merger of
Packers Is
Permitted
Government Will Not Inter.
ferc Before Deal Is Closed;
Future Action Is Careful
ly Avoided in Statement.
Data Given to Senate

Data HlVen 10 oehd'e
Washington. Dec. 1.-The govern
ment Will take no action at this timo
en- the proposed acquisition OF Nor
ris & Co.'S physical assets by Armour
g. Co. of Chicago. it was formally an
nounced today by the secretary OF
agriculture. This decision was reach
ed by Secretary Wallace after lonS
study of the proposal and conferences
with President Harding and Attorney
General Daugherty. There was no IN
dcation in Washington whether Ar
mour & Co. would proceed with their
negotiations for the Morris plant.
which is a competitor and one OF the
big five" packing establishments.
Secretary Wallace declared there
appeared to be no occasion for acticn
at this time under the packers and
stock yards act which he administers,
in connection with the proposal in
formally laid before him by J. Ogden
armour. Mr.. Wallace also Transmits
ted this information and additional
data on the proposal to the senate
in response to resolution of Senator
La Toilette. Wisconsin.
Merger Not Prohibited.
In formal announcement, ME-.
Wallace declared there was nothing
In tho packers and stockyards act
which specifically prohibits the pur'
chase by ono packer of the physical
assets of another. An opinion of At,
torney General Dausherty. made pub
lie with the announcement. said ths
act is essentially a regulatory ons and
that the duties and powers of the sec
retary Of agriculture hereunder are
TO regulate the industry.
The attorney general declared neither
the act itself nor the regulation
provided for therein knows or re-
IquireB that the secretary of agrlcui
ture should advise the industry IL
regard to such a transaction as pro
posed by Mr.. Armour In advance of .ta
conSumation. Mr.. Daughtery said the
act vested Mr.. Wallace with broad
powers Of inquiry and he was Of the
opinion Mr.. Wallace might make
such inquiry.
The language OF tho packers and
stockyards act" said Mr.. Daugherty,
makes it clear to me that the act
dOeS uOL IcdQlfe you to ldke any
formal action unless you have reason
to believe that the law has been
violated or is being violated. To
constitute a violation Of law within
the meaning of this act. there must
be something more than a mere state
ment Of what person or Corporation
contemplates.
Cite Taft Oecision,
Citing a decision OF the suprems
court involving the act. Mr.. Daugh.
erty quoted from Chief Justice Taft
as follows:
Its provisions are carefully drawn
TO apply only to those practices and
'obstructions which. in the judgment
OF congress-, are likely to affect in
terstate commerce prejudicaIly."
Secretary Wallace in his formal
statement said:
} "Mr. J. Ogden Armour came hers
and stated in an informal way that
his firm had under consideration q
proposal to purchase the physical as.
J sets of the packing plants owned and
operated by Morris & CO.
No Application Made.
Contrary to what seems 10 be a
general opinion, Mr.. Armour did nos
present an application for the priv.
ilege of merging these two plants.
He came to me with the frank state,
ment that by buying the business
OF Morris Co, he expected to bo
; able to add largely to the volume of
business of Armour & Co and thus
effect large economies In the ad.
ministration of the business. Dur.
ing the war. when there was most
urgent demand for the largest pcs.
sibie amount OF meat to maintain the
allied forces overseas, most Of the
large packers made extensive addi-
tions to their plants at large expense.
Under conditions which have pre-,
vailed since the war. the business has
not been sufficient to enable them 10
run the plants at full capacity and,
, as is the case with many other bust.
ness enterprises. this has left them
, with an overhead expense out OF pro.
portion to the volume of business be.
, ing done.
Competition to Continue.
Briefs of Armour & Co. presented IA
Secretary Wallace and transmitted to
the senate contended that the con.
solidation would not hinder. but would
increase. competition In the packing
industry. Decisions interpreting the
sherman and Clayton antitrust laws,
the federal trade commission act and
the packers and stockyards act were
cited to support the proposed con.
solidation.
That tho government, under tre
packers and stockyards act, would re-
Turn TO Page Six. Column Four.,