The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-03-27
Department Agriculture Probes
Alleged Combine at h. C.
MistletOe Yards Market Not on
Level Is Charge.
ARMOUR is DEFENSE WITNESS
Kansas Livestock Exchange
Among Others in the Suit.
Interference With Competitive
Buying Is Alleged Action.

Kansas City. March 27.-With ].
Z Ogden Armour. of Chicago, president
OF Armour & Company, subpoenaed
as a witness, the federal department
of agriculture's hearing Of charges
against the packing company began
here today.
Charges of monopclistic practices
in the conduct of the Mistletoe yards
I here, tending TO depress- the price of
hogs and interfere with an open and
competitive market were brought
against the Armour company January
% 1922 by ]. =. Swift and Frank
Witherspoon. livestock commission
men. acting for the Kansas City Live
stock exchange
) Violation of the federal packer
stock yards control act of 1921 was
charged. Under the provisions OF that
act the hearing is being held before A
commission of the department Of agri-
culture. J. T. Hainer. Thirty-nine as
. sociations Of livestock producers and
farmers. including the Kansas State
livestock association, the Missouri
Livestock association. the Oklahoma
Livestock association, the National
Livestock Producers association and
the Farmers union of Kansas, have
Joined the local livestock exchange in
the charges.
They assert that the Mistletoe yards
privately owned by the Armour COM
pany thru the Fowler packing COM
pany a subsidiary of the local Armour
80
{ has given exclusive rights to selected
shippers who deal with the Mistletoe
yards. excluding all other farmers,
producers or farmers cooperative as
sociations-"
At the outset of the hearing. Judge
B. NJ Hainer overruled two motions
filed by Alex F. Reichman of Chicago
counsel for the company. One sought
TO dismiss the petition on the ground
that it was indefinite and contained
allegations rather than facts. The
other sought to limit the scope of the
hearing to what is known as Title Two
of the Federal stockyards act and to
dismiss as to Title three of the act on
the ground that the AIistletoe yards
have never been declared public yards
by the department of agriculture. In
opposing the motions John S. Boyd, of
the counsel for the plaintiffs. said:
we shall show that this is the most
monstrous scheme the packers ever
attempted to put over''
Mr. Reichman in his opening state
ment declared the action was an eff
from producers thruout the country;
that it was an effort to compel pro-
ducers to pay tribute to the commits
sion man.
He said 225 small Independent
packers in the United States. most OF
them located where there are no pub
lie stockyards are now compelled to
buy direct from producers and that
these small packing plants out OF
business.
He also asserted that the order
would be injurious to the producer of
livestock He said that the packers
are trying in good faith to live up to
the packers stockyards control act of
1921 This is the first case brought |
under that act.
J. II. Mercer, secretary of the Kan
sas Livestock association, one of the /
intsrveners. told those present that he /
regarded the issues at stake in thet
case of tremendous import and ASSERT |
ed that they were more momentous |
TO the producer than to anyone else.
Judge Hainer in a statement ad- |
monished the plaintiff and defendants |
to keep to facts in presenting their |
evidence to avoid the injection Of per- /
sOnalities. He asserted that both sides /
would be given an opportunity to pre-
sent their evidence fully.
Court officials said the hearing |
might last several weeks. F. w. Houx, |
president of the Kansas City Livestock |
exchange. was the first witness called l
to the stand bN the plaintiffs