NAWSA GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE Costigan, Mabel C. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS 532 SEVENTEENTH STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. REGIONAL DIRECTORS FIRST REGION MRS. R. L. DeNORMANDIE BOSTON, MASS. SECOND REGION MRS. F. LOUIS SLADE NEW YORK CITY THIRD REGION MRS. JULIAN B. SALLEY AIKEN, S. C. FOURTH REGION MRS. WILLIAM G. HIBBARD WINNETKA, ILL. FIFTH REGION MISS MARGUERITE WELLS MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. SIXTH REGION MRS. CHARLES H. DIETRICH HASTINGS, NEB. SEVENTH REGION MRS. WILLIAM PALMER LUCAS SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. OFFICERS PRESIDENT MRS. MAUD WOOD PARK WASHINGTON, D. C. HONORARY PRESIDENT MRS. CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT NEW YORK CITY FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT MRS. RICHARD EDWARDS PERU, INDIANA SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT MISS BELLE SHERWIN CLEVELAND, OHIO THIRD VICE-PRESIDENT MRS. SOLON JACOBS BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA TREASURER MISS KATHERINE LUDINGTON NEW YORK CITY SECRETARY MISS ELIZABETH HAUSER GIRARD, OHIO EXECUTIVE SECRETARY MRS. MINNIE FISHER CUNNINGHAM COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN CHILD WELFARE MRS. LaRUE BROWN BROOKLINE, MASS. EDUCATION MRS. WALTER DuBOIS BROOKINGS WASHINGTON, D. C. LIVING COSTS MRS. EDWARD P. COSTIGAN WASHINGTON, D. C SOCIAL HYGIENE MRS. ANN WEBSTER WASHINGTON, D. C. UNIFORM LAWS MRS. CATHERINE WAUGH McCULLOGH CHICAGO, ILL. WOMEN IN INDUSTRY MISS AMY MAHER TOLEDO, OHIO INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION TO PREVENT WAR MISS RUTH MORGAN NEW YORK CITY March 1, 1923 Miss Alice Stone Blackwell, 3 Monadnock St., Boston 25, Massachusetts. My dear Miss Blackwell: In answer to your letter of February 25th I am sending to Mrs. Herbert T. Hatch,material concerning the packers. I am enclosing in this, for your information, the latest leaflet on the subject from the Living Costs Committee. I sincerely hope that you are able to be with us at the convention in Des Moines on April 9th. With best wishes, I am, Devotedly yours, Mabel Cory Costigan. (Mrs. Edward P. Costigan) MC:HC FOURTH ANNUAL CONVENTION, DES MOINES, APRIL 9TH-14TH For information on Credentials, address Treasurer's Office 343 East 50th Street New York City Convention Secretary Miss Hazel K. Hite 532 17th Street Northwest Washington, D. C. The Packers And The Public Committee on Living Costs Mrs. Edward P. Costigan Chairman National League of Women Voters 532 Seventeenth Street N. W. Washington, D. C. WHAT THE PACKER CONTROL LAW HAS ACCOMPLISHED THE Packer Control law has been in operation since August 15, 1921. We may now ask what it has accomplished? The only answer so far published is to be found in two reports issued by the Secretary of Agriculture: the Annual Report of the Secretary of November 15, 1922, and a report made to him by the Packers and Stockyards Administration. The Secretary, who is charged with the administration of the Packers and Stockyards Act, states that 78 stockyards have been made subject to his jurisdiction; that 1075 market agencies and 3436 dealers at these markets are registered as required under the law; that resident market supervisors have been assigned to 19 of the stockyard markets; and that general rules and regulations governing stockyards and market agencies and dealers have been adopted. Eight formal complaints have been issued. With one exception all of these complaints have been against stockyard companies and market agencies. One complaint involved Armour's methods of buying live stock at that company's stockyards at Kansas City. The most important complaint apparently was the one which resulted in stopping a boycott on the part of old line commission companies against farmers' cooperative commission agencies at the St. Louis stockyards. The other six formal proceedings involved stockyard and market agencies where certain rates and charges were considered too high. Both the Secretary and the Chief of the Packers and Stockyards Division report that those subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary have shown a disposition to cooperate in the enforcement of the Act, and that many practices have been corrected without formal proceedings. One such practice involving one of the packers is mentioned, namely, selling butter in 15-ounce cartons-a misleading practice since the consumer was led to believe he was buying a full pound package. Another informal conference involved livestock commission men who were induced to correct such practices as filling their own orders out of consignments to themselves. Of course The League of Women Voters, from the consumer's point of view, welcomes the inauguration, either through formal or informal action, of practices which assure producers a fair market. However, consumers are measurably disappointed to find practically no mention of efforts to solve the disturbing conditions which resulted in the enactment of the packer control law. It is reported that the Packer Control Act has resulted in an increase in the number of independent packers, and in the volume of their business; also that the business of the independents in the main is more efficiently operated that that of the big packers. On the other hand, facts brought before Congress indicate that in the past twenty years the big packers have absorbed about 75 of their competitors, thereby reducing competition and promoting the tendency to monopoly. Proposed Merger of Armour and Morris Judging from past history, far-reaching mergers not infrequently result in less efficiency and economy, yet the public has recently been informed that Armour and Company has submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture plans for the acquisition by Armour and Company of the physical assets of Morris and Company. This deal would involve approximately $30,000,000 and would reduce from five to four the number of the big packing companies which already largely control the food supply of the nation. The Secretary has been advised by the Attorney General that the Packer and Stockyards Act does not require the Secretary of Agriculture to advise the packing industry about such transactions in advance of their consummation. It is therefore expected that the consolidation will go through as planned. One reason assigned for the merger is that it will make for greater efficiency and economy. The Federal Trade Commission, however, in its report on the Meat Packing Industry, challenged the efficiency of the packers and supported its contention by undisputed figures. It published data showing that the independent packers were making a higher rate of return on their investment without charging the public more that the five leading packers for service per dollar of sales. Prior to the passage of the Packer and Stockyards Act it would have been the duty of the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the proposed merger, but, by the terms of that Act, the Federal Trade Commission was unnecessarily removed from further jurisdiction over the packers except when requested by the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate and report. It is possible, therefore, that, in the absence of an amendment to that Act, any attempt by either House of Congress to obtain a report from the Federal Trade Commission on packer activities will ultimately be held unauthorized. It is unfortunate that the one organization of the Government, which has thorough knowledge of the packing business through its prior investigations, which is fully equipped with competent experts and attorneys, and whose official responsibilities require it to see that business is conducted fairly and in the public interest, should at this time be debarred from appropriate activity. Supporting the Federal Trade Commission Fortunately, however, Senator LaFollette has introduced in Congress a bill (S. 4110) to restore to the Federal Trade Commission its previous jurisdiction over the packers by amending the Packers and Stockyards Act. This bill is directly in line with previous endorsements of the League of Women Voters. A resolution (S. Res. 389) has also been introduced in Congress by Senator Norris, directing the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the proposed merger of Armour and Co. and Morris and Co.; report to the Senate whether the combination of those corporations is in violation of law; and determine to what extent, if any, such merge will tend to eliminate competition in the purchase of livestock, and to increase the consumers' cost of living Competition or Regulated Combinations? A serious question illustrated by the proposed Packer merger and squarely presented to the public and the present time by pending legislative measures is whether we should strive to keep alive the old competitive system or should permit that system to give way to the control of production and distribution by trusts, more or less regulated by the government? It is to be remembered that monopoly stifles individual initiative, modifies the formerly accepted theories of supply and demand, dictates prices, and is always directed toward private profit. There have been numerous attempts under the Sherman Anti- Trust law to dissolve monopolistic combinations which restrain trade. Efforts have also been made to regulate such combinations. However, under both experiments trusts flourish and in various ways competition continues to disappear. An American economist recently said: "Monopoly now prefers regulation. It is a guarantee against competition and government ownership." Some foreign countries have established the practice of limiting the profiteering of exacting business combinations by entering into active competition with them until normal conditions are restored. One Premier of Queensland, Australia, has said: "It is the policy of the government to encourage private enterprise, but when private effort takes the form of monopoly the government steps in." In this country repeated business mergers and their growing domination over the nation's supplies and distribution, are causing the question to be insistently asked- "What is to be the final policy of the American public in this important field which so vitally affects living costs?" Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.