OCR Text |
Show acker Bills Menace Utah Stock Industry, Strong Protests Say ' mountain Business Men Declare That Yards, i... Commission Houses and Cattle Growers Are Endangered by Measures. ' ,AltACTERIZINO the Bo-called I1'- acker bills pending before con-k: con-k: Lejs. and known in the senate as T the Ker.yon and Kendrick bills and ,n the house a3 the Anderson bill, 't race to the packing houses, stock i'i commission houses and livestock '' ' of the intermountain country, In.h and Idaho business men have l o t s Utah delegation in Wash-f Wash-f to use every effort to defeat the utin U Rich of Salt Lake repre-. repre-. the business interests particularly . 1, in the passage of the proposed 1 rirotesta to United States Senators and Smoot, points out where the ,.' of these measures would pre-'c- cou ra.se and unjustly interfere i' ih nrodu'ctlon, sale and distribution tVk and livestock products, and - .h. Maine for their introduction, par-, par-, i- heKenvon bill, on Francis J. t ,e result of his crusade against - LJJir houses of Chicago recently. ' Kh charges Mr. Heney with con-Si con-Si Si' "an unfair, one-sided, partial and Jlonal examination supported by .paper propaganda." tests Are Made. lLm who have written to the Utah 7 itlon in congress are M. K. Parsons fit Parsons & Co.: F. J. Hagen- I of the Wood Livestock company: as Austin of Austin Brothers; Jo-: Jo-: 8 Peery F- Leonard. C. H. Stew- rf the Salt Lake Livestock Commls-'i Commls-'i companv; J. H. Kerr of the Utah-Ao Utah-Ao Livestock I-oan company; George JV'er of the Western Livestock Loan J. Y. Rlch of the Rlch-Living- company, and J. H. Mandevfleld of ' jalt Lake Union Stock Yards. , 'feral of these men will go to Wash-1 Wash-1 1 m to appear before the committees Lj it Thlch hearing on the bills are be- 'fj: Rich's letter to Senators King and 0ot follows: ' sepms that we are face to face with "Sllsm, paternalism and government Jureaucracy. Vfe Bills Unjust. wo bills have been Introduced In the it ard referred to the committee on ij!t ;re and forestry, one known as "Knyon hill. Introduced June 23, 1919, MC'2, Sixty-sixth congress, first ses- ), arid the other as the Kendrick bill, Xiued the same day, iS. 2199), both tlfd 'A bill to stimulate the profiuc-, profiuc-, sale and distribution of livestock lives took products and for other pur-m pur-m ji' It seems to me that the 'other jtws' aro the principal features of (b! Is. arid that a better title v.-ould k bill to prevent, discourage and un-k' un-k' Interfere with the production, sale and distribution of livestock and livestock products.' '"Whether either or both of these bills has been reported out, or what their status may now be before the committee, commit-tee, 1 do not know, but I have read both of the bills, very carefully, and while the Ker.yon bill is by far the more radical, and to me It stems most vicious in its terms, both bills are vicious, radical, socialistic so-cialistic and revolutionary In their effect. "Probably these bills, and particularly the Kenyon bill, is the result of the crusade cru-sade of Francis J.. Heney against the packing houses in Ch.cago recently, in which no conducted an unfair, one-sided, partial and sensational examination, supported sup-ported by newspaper propaganda. Whether Wheth-er this is so or not, these bills are certainly cer-tainly the product of radical agitation. Measures Radical. "It seems to me that the government s going far afieid of its proper function if either of these bills become a law. Why should the government direct, control, manage and regulate the private business, neither public nor quasi public In its effect? ef-fect? Jn the Kenyon bill, particularly, tho secretary of agriculture and the commissioner com-missioner of foodstuffs, created bv the act subordinate to the secretary (section 6), may regulate and control the licensee s relations, whether direct or indirect,' to the purchase, manufacture, storage or sale in commerce - of foodstuffs or commodities com-modities other than those handled in the business for which the license was applied ap-plied for, and making it unlawful (section (sec-tion 7) for a licensee to engage or participate par-ticipate in any manner, directly or indirectly, indi-rectly, In the business of purchasing, manufacturing, storing or selling any foodstuffs other than livestock products where the effect of such participation (whether intentional or not) in such business may be to substantially lessen competition or to restrain commerce, etc. "If the government may control and regulate and say what business a packing pack-ing house may do or may not do, or what foodstuffs they may manufacture, buy, sell and deal in, or what other business they may otherwise engage in, regardless regard-less of how lawful or otherwise proper and beneficial it may be, then the government gov-ernment may regulate and control similarly simi-larly any other private business, stores, flour mills, warehouses, sugar factories, or any trade, business or profession, or what not. It is Socialism and paternalism In the extreme. If this Kenyon bill becomes be-comes a law, I do not know what we are coming -to. I would not wonder If there was more behind this bill than appears within it. If a packing house, whether it be a large packing house or small packing pack-ing house, can manufacture and produco other foodstuffs than mere meat products and market the product along with its meat products and with its selling organization, or-ganization, I do not see why It concerns tho government if they do it lawfully and the business is profitable and beneficial. Why should some government official have the dictation to say what business or line of business the packing house should engp.ge in :f the business in itself is lawfully done and conducted? What if the middleman and the wholesale grocer, or the warehouse, is cut out of the deal? 1 It would seem that the cost of foodstuffs i I so produced with the middleman elimnat-I elimnat-I ed thould make living cheaper. Industry Young Here. "There are several packing houses in L'tah, and the packing industry is young here. Suppose one of them wishes to put in a canning plant in Utah, Davis or Box-elder Box-elder county to can fruits and vegetables, and to have its force sell its products aiong with its meat products, why should not that thing be encouraged, and what business is it to the general government? j Why should some bureau of the government govern-ment have the power to say whether packing houses may or may not do that j thing? The veat needs development ' aion ali. lines, and it would seem that i every encouragement should be g-ven to j anybody, whatever h:s other line of busi-1 busi-1 r.ess may be, to develop the resources of i the w-t and to do and engage In as many different kinds of business as may be properly, and profitably done. "When are we to have an end to government gov-ernment regulations? One needs only to point to the inefficient governmental administration ad-ministration of the railroads, telegraph and telephone lines to know what would happen m the governmental control and regulation of any private business. - It seems to me that the time has come to call a halt on ail these wild ideas, and that we have gone too far already with governmental interference in matters which do not properly concern governmental govern-mental functions. Twenty years ago the suggestion of a probability" of bills such as these becoming a law would have been laughed at and ridiculed, and, aside from questions of their constitutionality, the mere idea of such Socialism and bureaucracy bureau-cracy in' this country would have been deemed preposterous. "Both of these bills seek to divorce the packing houses from any interest or ownership own-ership in any stock yard, and not only must the packers, but the stockyards and livestock commission house doing business busi-ness in connection with the stockyards, and distributors of market quotations and market news, be licensed and submit to bureau regulations and control. There may be instances where there has been abuse by reason of packing houses controlling con-trolling stockyards, but I dare say there are almost hundreds of stockyards where packing houses, large and small, have an interest in them, where there has been no abuse committed, but, on the contrary, direct benefit and encouragement given by reason of this fact to the livestock industry. in-dustry. Assistance Necessary. "Many stockyards could not have been operated or financed without assistance and cooperation from packing houses. Would it not be better to make a particular par-ticular tiling unlawful if Improper in connection con-nection with an interest or control of a stockyard, rather than make a sweeping provision denying in any event any interest, in-terest, whether large or small, of a packing pack-ing house in a stockyard? The stockyards stock-yards at North Salt Lake and in Ogden not only are benefited by the interest of the packing houses in them, but the livestock live-stock industry is stimulated, encouraged and benefited directly by such Interest and cooperation of the packing plants in Salt Lake and Ogden, and nothing has been done discriminatory or improper by reason of such interest and cooperation. "Both of these bills, one directly and the other Indirectly, forbid the use by the packing house of refrigerating cars to market their fresh meats. It Is the gen-oral gen-oral experience that the privately owned refrigerating cars are better kept up, better bet-ter cooled and Insure a more efficient and economical distribution to a wider territory terri-tory than has been or can practicably be done by the railroads. Outlying communities com-munities have been better served with fresh meats by the use of these cars than they otherwise could be served, and at less cost. If the packing houses are denied de-nied the use of these cars, the service cannot be supplied by the railroads; certainly cer-tainly not in the manner In which the railroads are being administered by the government. "Jnder these bills the secretary of agriculture agri-culture and commissioner of foodstuffs are given almost absolute and unrestricted power In their control, particularly of the packing industry. "There is provision for an appeal to the circuit court of appeals from the decisions de-cisions of the secretary of agriculture, but in the Kenyon bill it Is provided (section 13) that no order of the secretary suspending sus-pending or revoking a license shall be modified or set aside unless it is shown that it is unsupported by evidence, it being, be-ing, it seems, immaterial whether the evidence is sufficient or insufficient to support the findings. What a ridiculous situation! It is worse than the old Russian Rus-sian bureaucracy. Provision is made In both bills for receiverships and for winding wind-ing up and liquidating the business of the licensee. Anv lawyer familiar with receiverships knows the expense, waste and Inefficiency by these proceedings. I may be unusually conservative, but I cannot can-not understand why anybody with amy regard re-gard for the property rights of another can seriously urge the enactment of provisions provi-sions such as are contained In these bills. , Aid to Industry. "Packing plants, Btockyards, livestock commission houses and enterprises of this I sort mean much to the development of the livestock industry of the west, and every j encouragement should be given for its ! development. These measures can only j retard, hamper and embarrass livestock operations of this sort, and, however beau-1 beau-1 tiful a theory may be pictured of pater-! pater-! rial, control by tho government, 'experience 'experi-ence has shown that it will not work out efficiently. A control of the packing houses, stockyards and commission houses by the government will only mean inefficiency ineffi-ciency and politics to the detriment of these industries, and to the detriment of the livestock industry of the west. The inexperience and incompetency of government govern-ment clerks and red tape of bureau administration ad-ministration can have but the opposite effect as stated in the title of the bills 'to stimulate production, sale and distribution distri-bution of livestock and livestock products.' prod-ucts.' The principle is wrong. It is not a proper function of the government to if we are now to nationalize our private ( :::d us tries I can see the er.d of freedom I in this country. j Reviews Utah Case. 1 "I wish to give you a fw facts re'.n- I tive to the situation in Utah. Prior to ; April, 1517. Sp.lt Lake Citv had only a: transient stockyard. The nearest open ; market was Denver, over 600 miies away, i and there was practically no outlet in ; this territory for the small producer of livestock, who had a carload lot or less to market, other than to sell to the traveling speculators who were always 1 In touch with the markets, knew the values and took advantage of the farmers farm-ers and feeders. The result was that farmers and feeders were defrauded in I many cases. They vere discouraged from fc-eding and raising livestock for more than their own wants and could not afford to market their stock in the distant dis-tant markets, whatever they had. The livestock industry, fur that reason, for which this western country is particularly particu-larly adapted, languished in large measure mea-sure as far as the small farmer and feeder are concerned. Xow the small farmer is raising livestock for the market, mar-ket, because he has a ready market, just as the small farmer of the eastern and middle states has been doing with profit fcr years. "The business men of Salt Lake Citv induced the Cudahy Packing company to establi.-h a plant at Salt Lake Citv, and since that time, with the educational work which has been carried on with the farmers, directly assisted by the Agricultural Agri-cultural college, and with the market which wf;r then created here, with the easy facilities offered by our yards and others, the production of livestock has graruplly increased and the small farmer farm-er has made and Is making money out of livestock production. For the first time a farmer in these parts can know from day t. day what his livestock is worth aid where he can find a ready and quick market. Local market quotations are published in the daily papers, sales are reported and we have become rather proud of our growing livestock industry and the results have been very gratifying al! around. Development Needed. "The west needs development along these lines: we need more large packing houses, and as the livestock production increases, ordinarily and naturally we would get more packing houses. But if the government controlled and opc rated the packing plants at the time, we never couid have induced the Cudahy company to come to Utah and we never would be able to induce other packing houses to enter this field. Local capital, time and time agam has been invested in these parts in the packing business, with financial fi-nancial less in every instance, and the leading stockmen of this section realize tliL situation and cannot and will not go into the packing business, because they have not the means or experience to make it profitable. Government control and regulation will mark the end, of course, of further expansion of the packers. pack-ers. "If the government sees to it that there is no unfair discrimination or deceptive practice in commerce and ho collusion Let ween the packers to control supplies and the markets or operation of territory, that is as far as the government ought to go; but to provide for licensing and regulation reg-ulation of tho stockyards and packing business with powers of suspension and liquidation through receiverships is ail wrong. "It is a fact well known here, that but for the financial aid and assistance given us by the Cudahy company, we could not have started business. These bills propose pro-pose to divorce absolutely the packing houses from any interest in the stockyards. stock-yards. What the reason for that is I do not know, except there may be a suspicion sus-picion that the packing houses have some advantage through the use of the yards over small buyers. I do not believe that this is the case, but if it exists at all it is a rare exception. With us, certainly, cer-tainly, I know that the Cudahy Packing company has no advantage nor is shown any favoritism whatever over any other buyer. There is nothing to prevent, so far as I know, packing houses from running run-ning their own private yards and doing their own feeding and loading. They could do that where a. small buyer could not afford to do it, and circumvent the provisions of the bills without violating them, as I understand it. Would It not be better, whatever the reason, to provide, pro-vide, under penalty, that no large buyer should have any advantage or favor over: any small buyer? If that is the purpose , of the provisions, it could very easily be brought about without doing that which may destroy the business of the stockyards. stock-yards. Certainly it will very materially , hurt us, and I can see no good reason for it. Injustice Claimed. ! "As to the provision that the packers shall not own and operate their private refrigerator cars, might as weil congress enact that no large dry goods store shall have and operate delivery wagons. The railroads cannot supply this service, which the packers do for themselves. They have not the cars, they have not the money with which to buy, nor the operators with which to operate them. The railroads will have their hands full of other very serious matters for some time to come without taking upon themselves them-selves the responsibility of running adequate ade-quate refrigerator cars for the packing companies. From my experience as a railroad man, I do not believe that? the railroads themselves can furnish the efficient ef-ficient service which the packers do for themselves in this regard. "The packers will be the hardest hit by these bills if any of them should pass, but our own stockyards, I am sure, would be very seriously affected. We would be subject to constant meddling of inexperienced inex-perienced government clerks. It would increase our operating expenses, I am sure. Of course, the shipper would have to pay it, but it would interfere with efficiency. ef-ficiency. I have no doubt. And there Is no reason for it. It is a precedent for government by bureaucracy, and a very , dangerous one, particularly at this time, j when the agitator and demagogue are abroad in the land. I feel that these measures are the direct result of Socialistic Social-istic agitation and 1 certainly hope that they will be decisively defeated. I believe be-lieve that now is the time when the snund, conservat ive brains of tho country coun-try should unite to stop this agitation to circumvent our constitutional institutions institu-tions and destroy private property. I do not think we should compromise at all with Socialism." control and direct and regulate private business as is proposed in tnese acts. "There are few wno'.esume features of the bibs as I have read them. Certain prohibitions may be proper if the matter is not already covered by existing law such as the provisions that the licensee shall not engagro in any unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice or device in commerce; nor seli or otherwise other-wise transfer to or for any other licensee, buy or receive, etc., any livestock or products prod-ucts for the purpose of apportioning the supply between themselves or unreasonably unreason-ably affecting the price or creating a monopoly; nor to conspire or arrange to apportion territory' for the carrying on of business, or to apportion purchases or sales to control the price thereof; nor to engage in any course of business or to do any act for the purpose of preventing any person from carrying on a competitive competi-tive or similar business in commerce. Tilings of that sort are perfectly proper, but that is about as far as any government govern-ment ought to go in the regulation of legitimate businessl "A number of livestock men have consulted con-sulted me with reference to these bills, and have urged me to write you to urge your opposition to their passage and to get an expression from you in the premises. prem-ises. "The matter is very important to the packing houses, stockyards, commission houses and livestock men of the intermountain inter-mountain country, and I hope that you may find time to write me fully your views in the premises and to do whatever may properly be done to prevent the passage of either of these bills." I Senator King Replies. Senator King's reply to Mr. Rich follows: fol-lows: "July 21, 1919. "Yours of the 1-1 th instant Is at hand. I agree with very much of what you say in your very strong and interesting letter. let-ter. Ever since I have been in the senate 1 have been denouncing the unmistakable trend toward socialism and vicious destructive de-structive paternalism. Germany was a bureaucratic and paternalistic nation. She attempted to nationalize everything and became a tyrannous, autocratic power. It looks as though many, of the American people , were trying to fasten upon the United States that which we fought to overthrow in Germany. Many of the people peo-ple seem to have lost all spirit of independence inde-pendence and to have forgotten that splendid individualism which has brought this nation to such a great degree of prosperity and such a high stage of liberty. lib-erty. The people are becoming enervated ener-vated and the states atrophied. "The slightest evil existing In a community com-munity becomes the object of congressional congres-sional investigation and national control and supervision. The states are being bribed by federal contribution to surrender surren-der sovereign rights. Congressmen and senators are daily importuned to obtain appropriations to aid in matters that are purely individual or for the states themselves. them-selves. The situation is very alarming to me. Manifestations of a new federalism are too palpable to be ignored. 1 think our country is in danger from these sinister sin-ister and intriguing influences. "I cannot understand the mental attitude atti-tude of so many of our people with respect re-spect to the problems confronting us. We are building up a great bureaucracy. We are bringing thousands of officials to Washington and are putting the hand of the federal government into every community com-munity and throttling the rights of tho states and interfering with the liberties of the people. It looks to me as though the tide in favor of nationalism and paternalism pa-ternalism is stronger today than ever. Opposes Radical Action. "In my opinion, those who believe in our form of government and the maintenance mainte-nance of the rights of the states and the preservation of a true individualism should set their faces against this menacing men-acing evik "The world Is in ferment, and the poisonous and fetid atmosphere of other lands seems to have been borne by revolutionary revo-lutionary wind to our own country. This Is a time for sound and sane thinking and patriotic action. This is a time when genuine Americans should be for America and for the Institutions, policies and principles that have come down from the fathers. "I am sending you a copy of one of the speeches which I delievered that points out, in part, the views which I entertain on the matter referred to in your letter. "I have recently communicated with the federal trade commission and expressed ex-pressed my strong disapproval at any attempt at-tempt at governmental price-fixing. The lees federal supervision of the activities of the people, the better it will be for business and for the people. "There is a strong effort being made to put the government in control of the mines and the smelters, packing plants and railroads, as well as other important industries. I am opposed to all these efforts ef-forts and share the views which you express ex-press in regard to tho evils that would result therefrom. I shall call your letter to the attention nf the appropriate committee com-mittee and urge that it be given duo consideration." con-sideration." Smoot Against Bills. Senator Smoot's reply to Mr. Rich follows: fol-lows: "I desire to acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 11, 1919, calling my attention atten-tion to the two so-called packer bills, one Introduced by Senator Kenyon and the other by Senator Kendrick, and referred to the committee on agriculture and forestry. for-estry. "I agree with every word you say in your letter, and shall do everything I can to prevent the passage of such radical radi-cal legislation. The federal trade board, created for the purpose of assisting American business houses, has given most of Its time to the destruction, if possible, of the meat packing industry of the United States. Every demagogue in public life is in favor of these two bills. Every Socialist is in favor of them, and, as you no doubt are aware, it is very popular in tho halls of congress to rant and rave against the packers of the country." coun-try." Says Bills Vicious. Mr. Manderheld directed his letter to United States Senator A. J. Gronna, chairman of the committee bn agriculture, agricul-ture, and It is as follows: "Vou are a very busy man and so am I, so I shall try to be brief in what 1 have to sR.y in criticism of the so-called 'packer bills' pending before congress and known in the senate as the Kenyon and Kendrick bills and in the house as the Anderson bill. Any of those bills, if enacted en-acted into law, will directly and seriously affect the business of this company, or which I am general manager. I have read and digested the bills, have read the report re-port of the federal trades commission, have rend the discussion appearing in the public prints, and from al! of which, together to-gether with my own persona! Knowledge of the facts and from my lifiren years' experience In the railroad business prior to my present connections. 1 h;ve. no hesitancy in stating i hat the bills are had, wrong in principle, d.-s; rue t ive of private rights of pi o-rty, w'.iol'.y un-American, un-American, al Together So; ie and paternal, pa-ternal, and. if any of ihm he-'o:: o law, will dmo-a'.iz"1 the wlinV 'ivestnek industry, both from the sn :nnl-; of t '.e producer as wll as f rum tli.it of tie packer, the stockyards and th c0rnrr.:?-s.on c0rnrr.:?-s.on ho'-'y.es, arc witlvv:: :,y benefit :o the public. Th ro.v: w-'l le i:v-fr.-c-cy. wli:ch. in the v.vy n' ; re of t h" livestock tr,1".:s?ry in all 'f cloyo y rwau-d .:ni's. c.-.r.r.o r. but gr-- .y in erf j the cost of all ii ve r,-, i; prod ic; ? to ! pub;:.'. Not oriy ih.i. but it will work i a jravp :n:::st;ce to th pri'.a'e owr.vr? ' of stockvards. corn mission hoi'-s and' packing ho"s. s. It s-.-cms to ire t::at thse mas-ires ar directly t:.e result o: ' Soc.alisf.c r rop; ganda. "The destructive and radi'-i! icrn of! Socialism wer-? r.ever more widely d Ivo- c-Ued than a r.rf frt tin-". " So' :,;!- ' ism fpfds and fa"ens upon d.s .r.tr-.za- j ;:on, unrest and n c. ' a r. on. and t ;'.'. ! to mv mind. rIlc; ; urrs; f ... country. K n'--r rcp-ev---, : - v ,s ;;; ror.- ; crer.s. f'"te'l o prot- :::;'.' pr.-v.it pr.-v.it r'.gh?:. sw-rn to . -;V-..i m ro; t;,- j- . tlon of tc Un'td S-a'.". h sr.;;. ran- ' ter-s 7riva;e r : . . t of t rpcrty. sre to -led a5trrty s-r:v: t. ry ' wild id fas of t-o.alis-r. ten c.';r - r;. -' i m e n t is P r ' t y much i f . , ; 1 . : r a : d ' have p-of t -d lit t ' e hy the : eri-.ce ot tho pa?" lJ-?. y-'-fl ( r a '...-.-. i We have ha i a wo'v'r-r'-il cro-.v'- - -- 1 t'.onru fcv-rr:--; a r d g-r ---m t men: 3'.n-e the war of ir.cr; zr.v -z-';, |