Search America's historic newspaper pages from 1789-1924 or use the U.S. Newspaper Directory to find information about American newspapers published between 1690-present. Chronicling America is sponsored jointly by the
National Endowment for the Humanities and the Library of Congress. external link Learn more
Image provided by: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL
Newspaper Page Text
ready Had been ruled upon wh'en
demurrer filed by the packers on
the same ground was presented
some time ago.
And, second, the government
has a right to produce all evidence
along the line of what the pack
ers were doing three years agoj
in order to show motive.
This point settled this forenoon
a recess was taken, and George
Buckingham though up the
things he would tell the jury
about the beneficence of the pack
ers. When court again went into
session, Buckingham began.
He first vehemently very ve
hemently denied that the pack
ers were in dny way responsible
for the high cost of living.
"The increase in food price," he
asserted, "has been due solely to
the retail distribution of the sta
ples. That distribution is un
scientific and uneconomic. These
defendants have had nothing to
'do with the increase in the" cost
of steaks." -
Then he denied that the pack
ers had "unreasonably" interfer
ed with commerce. "He read ex
tracts from the Supreme- Court
decisions, in the Tobacco and
Standard Oil decisions, which de
clared it was perfectly legal to
combine and exercise a "reason
able" restraint upon trade.
,He then began on the profits
made by the packers, and, accord
ing -to Buckingham, these are
practically nothing at all.
"The margin of profit made by
the packers," he said, "is less than
$1.50 per head of cattle less
than y$ of one per cent per pound
on dressed meats. Computed on
the price paid'for live cattle "this
would be less, 'than yi cents a
"By best business methods, by
taking advantage of science and
by making use of all by-prodUcts,
these defendants have been able-'
to make a modest profit of less
than 10 per cent per year on their
actual invested "capital."
You see how it is, don't you?
J. Ogden Armour and Louis
Swift, and all the other little
Swifts, have barely been manage
ing to live all this time, and here
rude, unmannerly people have
been calling Armour and the
Swifts all kind of harsh names !
It is simply ridiculous !
Of course, J. Ogden Armour is
rated at about $100,000,000, and
a "modest profit" of 10 per cent
on $100,000,000 is about $10,000,
000, and that's a pretty -fair salary
to be getting for helping out the
people by supplying them with
And, of course, J. Ogden ''Ar
mour made the aforesaid $100,
000,000 in the packing industry,
in which his family began ."with
nothing at all.
But it is evident that the pack
ers have been misjudged, and you
can't blame them very much for
trying to avoid trial and being
furious ashrd ashrdl amfwyoopo
further misjudged when a few
more details as to their "modest
profits" come out!
Having settled with the profits
of the oppressed, but so very char-r
itable packers, Buckingham be-