MASTER 
 
 NEGATIVE 
 NO. 95-82371 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) 
 governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted 
 materials including foreign works under certain conditions. In addition, 
 the United States extends protection to foreign works by means of 
 various international conventions, bilateral agreements, and 
 proclamations. 
 
 Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are 
 authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these 
 specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be 
 "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." 
 If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction 
 for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright 
 infringement. 
 
 The Columbia University Libraries reserve the right to refuse to accept a 
 copying order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would Involve 
 violation of the copyright law. 
 
Author: 
 
 Title: 
 
 Plain facts regarding the 
 attempted destruction of 
 
 Place: 
 
 [n.p.] 
 
 Date: 
 
 [1 886] 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 PRESERVATION DIVISION 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 
 
 MASTER NEGATIVE # 
 
 ORIGINAL MATERIAL AS FILMED - EXISTING BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD 
 
 Business 
 
 t)302.1?- 
 
 P69 
 
 ■ Plain facts regarding the attempted destruc 
 tion 0-: the dressed beef industry. c^^^^J 
 22 p. 
 
 1. Beef - Transportation. ^2.. Railroads 
 U. S. - Rates. 
 
 RESTRICTIONS ON USE: 
 
 FILM SIZE: 
 
 3 \)hr\^ 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 REDUCTION RATIO: l^X 
 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA (\\p\ IB MB 
 
 DATE FILMED: Q-'T^O ^-S 
 
 TRACKING # : 
 
 _ INITIALS: V(h 
 
 FILMED BY PRESERVATION RESOURCES, BETHLEHEM, PA. 
 

 ^/ 
 
 
 ST. 
 
 .■9-/ 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 CJl 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 Q) 
 O >> 
 
 lOQ Q 
 
 
 o 
 
 :^ 
 
 
 
 en 
 
 Z 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 OPQ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ::d 
 
 N 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 (Jl 
 
 OOM 
 
 o 
 
 <pj 
 
 4^ 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 > 
 
 o m 
 
 CD O 
 
 CO 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 N 
 
 X 
 
 ISI 
 
 o: 
 
 '>■ 
 
 ^ 
 
 1-: 
 
 > 
 
 
 >^ 
 
 
 
 
 .-9^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 J^A 
 
 ^^. 
 
 <^ 
 
 '4t 
 
 ^A 
 
 
 Ol 
 
 °^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 .^^^ 
 
 ^^C^' 
 
 ^^V" 
 
 >^^ 
 
 > 
 
 in 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 en 
 
 O 
 
 r^^^^^%^ 
 
 io III: 
 
 
 00 
 
 cs 
 
 00 
 
 b 
 
 K5 
 
 io 
 
 K3 
 In 
 
 l.O mm 
 
 1.5 mm 
 
 2.0 mm 
 
 AB DEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
 abcd«lghi|klmnopqrstuvwKyzl234 567890 
 
 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
 abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzl234567890 
 
 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
 ' {hijklmnopc 
 12345678« 
 
 abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 
 
 B90 
 
 2.5 mm 
 
 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
 
 abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 
 
 1234567890 
 
 ^o 
 
 .< 
 
 t 
 
 <^ 
 
 V 1^ 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ?cP 
 
 '^o 
 
 ^^ 
 
 s.% 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 f^ 
 
 4^ 
 
 4^ 
 
 t*« 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 i. 
 
 1= 
 
 ^ 
 
 i. 
 
 m 
 
 H 
 31 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 ■o m -o 
 OLl"o 
 
 > C o> 
 
 I TJ ^ 
 A^ O 00 
 
 m 
 
 3D 
 
 m 
 
 Av 
 
 *' *#^ 
 
 
 c,^ 
 
 ^1 ev 
 
 ^- 
 
 »— » 
 
 ro 
 
 CJl 
 
 o 
 
 n 
 
 3 
 
 £0 
 
 
 
 
 =■0 
 
 3i 
 
 
 PV 
 
 '^^^-r:- 
 
 

 ■■? 
 
 1^ 
 
 Colujnbta (Bnifteisftp 
 
 THE LIBRARIES 
 
 f V'- 
 
 '%■ '! 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 ^* ^*^ 
 
I af I ■ M •■ If TTT ra ' nr - - 
 
 w 
 
 
 'J I 
 
 1 . 
 
 
 M 
 
 /\r .. 
 
 PLAIN FACTS 
 
 REGARDING THE 
 
 Attempted Destruction 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Dressed Beef Industry, 
 
 The following letter was written tt) L. J. Seargeant, February 
 11, 1886, in reply to his notification that it was proposed to revise 
 the Cattle and Beef Bates: 
 
 On April 11 and 12, 1883, we were invited to appear before Com- 
 missioner Fink and furnish full information of the expenses attending 
 the prosecution of the business of prt^paring and shipping dressed 
 beef to New York, which we did to that ofl&cial's expressed sat- 
 isfaction. The question then submitted to the Trunk Line Pool 
 was how to fix rates so that the man who buys in the East- 
 ern market dressed beef, should pay the same price per pound, 
 whether the article was shipped fiom Chicago or dressed in New 
 York from cattle shipped alive from the A\ est. The palpable 
 question of the right of the railroads to thus absorb any advantage 
 belonging to the dressed beef shippers fi'om improved methods, or 
 from the advantages of conducting slaughtering in the West as against 
 the East, was not considered. Nothing was said then about ' ' tenta- 
 tive," or trial rates; but, on the contrary, the inten'ogation was ex- 
 pressly full and thorough, for the purpose of removing uncertainty 
 about the basis of future rates; and when, in 1884, Commissioner Fink 
 submitted the question for arbitration to a board consisting of the 
 pool arbitrator (who in this case was Judge Cooley), G. F. Swift and 
 S. W. Allerton. The decision of this board it was expressly stated (in 
 the articles of submission), was to be final On November 7, 1884, 
 Judge Cooley announced his award in a letter to Commissioner Fink, 
 
 T 
 
 
saying: *' Agreement, however, was impossible, and Mr. Allorton and 
 Mr. Swift are about equally dissatisfied with the conclusion. / believe 
 it to be just.'" On the 8th of December, 1884, the rates fixed by the 
 award were put in force, namely: 70 cents per 100 lbs. on dressed b«>ef 
 and 40 cents per 100 lbs. on live cattle, Chicago to New York, and we 
 were compelled to submit to the same. 
 
 We learn that the following was adopted at a meeting of the Trunk 
 Line representatives in New York, last December, regarding the rela- 
 tive rates on live stock and dressed meats. 
 
 *' Whereas, dissatisfaction having been expressed by Live-Stock 
 shippers at the basis upon which dressed beef and dressed meat rates 
 are at present made: 
 
 ' ' Resolved, That the Commissioner be requested to reconsider the 
 arguments upon which the present differences in rates are established, 
 to invite further argument from the interested companies and live- 
 stock and dressed meat shippers, and to decide what relative rates so 
 fixed shall be observed tentatively by all companies concerned for a 
 period of three months from March 1, 1886." 
 
 We feel that it would be useless for us (even if the time were not 
 inadequate) to attempt to furnish arguments or data ihat would have 
 any weight with the Trunk Line Pool, as this proposed revision of 
 rates is based upon the ''dissatisfaction' of "Live Stock Shippers." 
 It occurs to us that such a ' 'dissatisf a(5tion' ^ and assumt^d loss of profit 
 to the live-stock shipper may be as well if not more justly claimed 
 by the dressed beef shipper, whose losses in New York especially have 
 been heavy and continuous ever since business was opened there. 
 
 We beg to say that we object also to entering arguments on a 
 question which is only to establish a "tentative" rate for three 
 months, as proposed by the Trunk Line Pool. Smrh a remarkable 
 scheme could only result in demoralization and uncertainty. 
 
 Moreover, the dressed beef interest has always suffered additional 
 loss whenever the (pestion of relative rates of dressed beef and live- 
 stock have been "adjusted" by the Trunk Lines, namely, August 28, 
 1878, the dressed beef rate was made 50 per cent over cattle; June 
 13, 1879, the rate was made 60 per cent over cattle, and December 8, 
 1884, it was made 75 per cent over cattle, and the cause of these con- 
 tinual advances was always the ' ' dissatisfaction ' ' of the live-stock 
 shippers. The award of December 8, 1884, was severe upon us, but 
 we submitted to it, because we felt we were bound to submit. C'er- 
 tainly the right of appeal from the award rested with the dressed 
 beef interest, who were the losers, and not with the live-stock inter- 
 est which was benefited. The spirit and intention of that award was 
 not carried out for a day by the roads toward the dressed beef inter- 
 
 in 
 
 CO 
 
 "5^ 
 
 3 
 
 est. Large sums of money are justly due as overcharges to all the 
 dressed beef shippers, caused by the secret cuts on cattle rates to 
 favored paiiies. It would be well that the Trunk Line Pool would 
 see to it that these settlements are made in good faith by all the roads 
 with both dressed beef and cattle shippers, before proposing a new 
 "tentative" rate, which at best can only offer superior facilities for 
 further cuts. We consider it a breach of faith for the Trunk Lines 
 to attempt to so lightly set aside the rights of the dressed beef ship- 
 per. Additional large sums of money have been invested in the busi- 
 ness on the supposition that rates were fixed, until the value of the 
 plant for the purpose of preparing, shipping and selling dressed beef 
 equals or exceeds the value of the Stock Yards and the Eastern slaugh- 
 ter houses competing for the same business. We say this fact should 
 be recognized, notwithstanding that Chicago owns one, and New 
 York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and other cities the opposing interests. 
 We want nothing unfair on either side. We want justice and fair 
 play for Chicago enterprise, and for our legitimate business. We will 
 not submit to any further discrimination and extortion, nor will we 
 consent to a tentative rate. Such a rate we consider to be aimed at 
 our destruction, for if we do not close our doors after a three months' 
 "tentative" rate, it is clear that the "dissatisfaction" of the "Live 
 Stock Shippers " would still continue to influence the Trunk Line Pool 
 to further discriminations until the dressed beef industry was slain. 
 
 We would suggest to the gentlemen investigating this question to 
 take the incubus of the Stock Yards off the backs of Live- Stock men 
 if they really wish to find a solution of this difficulty. 
 
 We regret to be obliged to take this position, but we see none othei 
 open before us: and we sincerely hope, in view of the interests your road, 
 Chicago and the beef consumers of the country have in this industry, that 
 you will be able to so present the case to the honorable gentlemen who 
 are to pass upon the matter that they may be moved to refrain from 
 committing this premeditated injustice. 
 
 We shall be glad to assist in the consideration of the proper rates 
 on Live Hogs, Hog Products and Dressed Hogs — also on Live Sheep 
 and Dressed Sheep — whenever desired: also upon relative rates of Live 
 Cattle and Dressed Beef, provided the cost of hauling these articles 
 be considered, and the roads will agree with the shippers to be boimd 
 by the findings of the investigation or arbitration for an agreed period, 
 ind provided the overcharges resulting fi'om cut cattle rates are first 
 |)aid. Youis respectfully, 
 
 Armour &> Co. 
 
 February 19, the above letter was given to the press, the exec^ 
 
 I 
 
 
ntive committee on the 18th at New York, having resolved to advance 
 rates taking effect March ], 1886, as follows: 
 
 New York 
 
 Boston 
 
 Albany 
 
 Philadelphia 
 
 Baltimore and Washington. 
 Buffalo and Pittsburg 
 
 Cattle. ^Hoffsj Sheep. 
 
 35 
 
 35 
 
 28 
 
 32 
 20 
 
 30 
 30 
 
 28 
 28 
 27 
 17J 
 
 45 
 45 
 36 
 43 
 41 
 25 
 
 Dr. Beef Dr.H'gs Dr.Sh'p 
 
 65 
 r.5 
 52 
 
 m 
 
 (J2 
 35 
 
 00 
 00 
 
 48 
 52 
 51 
 30 
 
 90 
 90 
 72 
 
 88 
 87 
 50 
 
 Commenting on this the Nnv York Times of February 20, 
 under the heading " Kaising the Price of Meat/' says: 
 
 The Executive Committee of the trunk line railroads has decided 
 that the people of this city must pay higher prices for meat. At a 
 meeting held on Thursday last the freight rates for live-sto<5k and 
 dressed meat from Chicago to New York were greatly advanced. On 
 and after March 1 these rates will be from 40 to 100 per cent higher 
 than thev are now. 
 
 New rates have been fixed for live and di-essed sheep and hogs, as 
 well as for live cattle and dressed Ijeef, but it is very plain tliat the 
 movement is one for the suppression of the trade in dressed beef. At 
 present the rate for the transportation of live cattle is 25 cents, while 
 for dressed beef it is 43^ cents. The dealers in dressed beef have 
 been compelled to pay 74 per cent more for the transpoi-tation of their 
 meat than the stock yard men have paid for live cattle. Hereafter the 
 rate for live cattle is to be 35 cents (an increase of 40 per cent), but 
 the rate for dressed beef is to be 65 cents (an increase of nearly 50 per 
 cent), so that the discrimination against dressed beef will be measured 
 by 85 instead of 74 per cent. Our dispatches from Chicago say that 
 the dressed beef shippers regard this addition as an attempt to drive 
 them out of business, and that they will seek justice in the courts as 
 well as in Congress. The greatest interests to be affected here are 
 those of consumers. The trade in Chicago dressed beef has grown 
 rapidly. Last year the dressed meat of 1.000.000 cattle that ha(l been 
 shipped from Chicago in refrigerator cars was consumed in thf^ East. 
 If the new rates do not prevent the continued shipment of this meat 
 they will raise the price of meat in this market, for the consumer will 
 pay the additional cost of transportation. If they do drive the dressed 
 beef men out of the business, they will cause a still greater incrc^aseof 
 price, and deprive Eastern consumers of all the advantages that attend 
 competition between the two systems of supply. Dealers say that the 
 new rates will cause an advance of from 2 to 6 cmU a pound on beef, 
 and of from 3 to 8 cents a pound on mutton, 
 
 AEMOUR & CO. ON THE RECENT RATES MADE BY COMMISSIONER FINK. 
 
 Chicago, Febrviary 28. — [Editor of the Tribune.] — The New York 
 Times in discussing February 20 — in an editorial headed ' ' Raising the 
 Price of Meat — " the effect of the proposed increase of rates of live 
 stock and dressed meat from Chicago to New York by the Trunk-Line 
 Pool, showing, among other things, that the price of meat in the New 
 York market must be greatly increased, says: 
 
 ' ' If the new rates do not prevent the continued shipment of this 
 meat they will raise the price of meat in this market, for the consumer 
 will pay the additional cost of transportation. If they do drive the 
 di'essed beef men out of the business, if will cause a still greater in- 
 crease of price, and deprive Eastern consumers of all the advantages 
 that attend competition between the two systems of supply. ' ' 
 The following questions are then propounded: 
 
 ' ' Perhaps the officers who have undertaken to raise the price of 
 meat in this city can account for their action in a more satisfactory way. 
 If they have any good reasons for their course, they should say what 
 they are. Why have the rates been advanced ? " 
 
 Immediately Mr. Fink replies to the article in a letter of the same 
 date. Mr. Fink is the commissioner of the Trunk-Line Pool, an asso- 
 ciation of railways owning and controlling all the lines of railway 
 transportation from the West to the East, and its purpose is to pre- 
 vent competition and to enforce to the fullest extent the odious doctrine 
 of the railways that they are entitled as a right to ' ' all that the traffic 
 will bear. ' ' Mr. Fink is selected by the representives of the Trunk 
 Lines to administer the affairs of the pool because of his distinguished 
 ability as an expert to accomplish its i)urposes. As such commissioner 
 he has power to fix rates, and as arbitrator, his decision is final as to 
 rates and each road' s proportion of traffic. He is vested with power to 
 enforce his mandates. He is the dictator of common carriers, and the 
 traffic of the nation is subject to him. In his reply to the New York 
 Times Mr. Fink says: 
 
 * ' The principle upon which the relative = rates have now been 
 determined is that the cost of transportation on a pound of beef from 
 Chicago to New York, shall be the same whether the cattle are slaugh- 
 tered in Chicago or slaughtered in New York. ' ' 
 
 This is a complete change of base from the Commissioner's former 
 position. April 11 and 12, 1883, Mr. Fink called the live-stock ship- 
 pers and dressed-beef shippers together in conference with the repre- 
 sentatives of the Trunk Lines for the purpose of fixing permanent rates 
 on live cattle and dressed beef. At that meeting he announced the 
 principle on which the rates were to be^fixed, as follows : 
 
 "We are to consider how to place the dressed beef and live-stock 
 
« 
 
 shippers upon an equal footing, so that a man who buys in the Eastern 
 market dressed beef that is shippeil from Chicago as such, and dressed 
 beef that is derived from live-stock which is shi]>ped from the West 
 and slaughtered in New York, will have to pay the same money per 
 pound. " 
 
 Now the Commissioner says: "The railroad companies are now 
 acting upon the correct principle of neutrality between both interests, 
 and can readily sustain their position before a legislative or judicial 
 inquiry. ' ' 
 
 This is a confession by the Commissioner that his position in IHS'fi 
 Was illegal, and he would now have the public understand that the 
 railways have abandoned that position, so that hereafter they would 
 occupy a position of neutrality. This declaration of neutrality sounds 
 well, but examination shows that while compelled nominally to aban- 
 don the position taken by him in 1 883, he has fixe<l a rate for dressed 
 beef which discriminates more against that industry than any relative 
 rates established since 1878, when the railroads first adopted the prin- 
 ciple which the Commissioner has so lately aband(med as untenable. 
 The rates for (h'essed beef since 1878 have been, iirst 50, then 60, and 
 then 75 per cent more than live-stock; and now by this new i>lan the 
 Commissioner has fixed them at 85 per cent over live-stock. How does 
 this accord with the Commissioner's protestation of neutrality, and his 
 statement that the cost of trans] )orting the beef shall be the same 
 whether the cattle are slaughteretl in Chicago or New York ? 
 
 In this connection it is suggestive that his new rate is susj>iciously 
 close to the one he claimed ought to be fixed when he oj>enly declared 
 the right to compel the Eastern consumers to pay the same price per 
 pound for beef, whether it was slaughtered in New York or (^.hicago, 
 regardless of the cost of transportjition. 
 
 Let the public understand that the change of "}>rinciple" aniiouiiced 
 by Mr. Fink has not caused him to abandon his ])nrpose to discrimi- 
 nate against the dressed-beef industry, and to swell th«* dividends of 
 the stock yards and abattoir companies. Mr. Fink would have the 
 public believe that under his new "principle," when the cattle shi}>per 
 pays 35 cents on his live cattle, gross weight, he ri^ally i^ays r>5 cents 
 a hundred on the net produce of tliose cattle in the form of beef at 
 New York. Let us see if this be so; 40,000 pounds of live cattle At 35 
 cents equals $140; live cattle yield an average of 57 per cent dressed 
 beef; 57 per cent of 40,000 equals 22,800 pounds; 1140 freight on 
 22,800 pounds net produce gives a rate of 61 j*o cents per 100 pounds 
 from Chicago to New York; but the hides, tallow, hoofs, heads and 
 offal also were brought through with the net beef for $140. The live- 
 cattl&man has landed them in New York free. The dressed-bt*ef ship- 
 
 per slaughters at Chicago, and forwards his net product, 22,80l) 
 pounds, to New York at 65 cents per 1 00, equal to $148. 20, and still 
 has the horns, hides, tallow, heads, hoofs and oflfal, which also go East, 
 and upon which he must pay full tariff of 30 to 35 cents per 100. 
 
 This, then, is the way Mr. Fink's new principle works: He pro- 
 poses to carry a whole steer for the live-stock man for the same money 
 he charges the dressed-beef shipper for half a steer — i. e., the net 
 dressed beef, and fiu'ther invites the dressed-beef shipper to forward 
 the remaining half of his steer at tariff rates! 
 
 Mr. Fink's assertion that the railroad companies have no right to 
 aid one party in destroying the business of the other can not be accepted 
 as an honest statement in the face of the rates proposed to be exacted. 
 What is the record of the roads on the proposition that they have no 
 right to aid one party in destroying the business of the other? Will 
 he say that under his control and supervision the railroads and theii* 
 copartners, the stock yards, have not waged relentless war against this 
 industry since it was first inaugurated? Will he deny that the "even 
 ers' ' who gorged themselves on the railroads' and butchers' life blootl 
 are not now the stock yards and abattoir owners and the live-stock 
 agents of and the heavy shareholders in the trunk lines? Will he 
 deny that it is the mighty influence of these stock yards and abattoirs 
 which so pursues, cajoles, and threatens the Trunk Lines that th;» able 
 commissioner is obliged to explain why the common carrier rate on 
 dressed beef can not be fixed on that carrier's proper recompense for 
 service rendered, but, on the contraiy, there must be an extra tax or 
 unearned rate for the sole purpose of making the dressed beef business 
 impossible ? 
 
 Mr. Fink makes a feeble attempt to defend his course as a mt^thod 
 of defeating monopolies. There are no patents on any of the appli- 
 ances connected with the dressed beef business. The di-essed-beef 
 shipper does not control the consumer. He can not limit the produc- 
 tion of cattle. From the natui'e of the business he can create no monop- 
 oly. The only monopoly connected with the business is the carrvinor 
 of dressed beef to the Eastern cities, which is done hy the railroads 
 which Mr. Fink represents. The ingenious scheme to force dressed 
 beef from the market has been, and is, to make secret cuts or rebates 
 to cattle shippers while professing to maintain the agreed relative 
 rates. The plan is to be made simpler by making separate instead of 
 relative rates, thus permitting the cattle rates to be cut while the 
 dressed-beef rates can be held firm. 
 
 Mr. Fink points to the rates on dressed beef as having been at one 
 time $1 per hundred, then 90, 80, 75, 70, and March I. to be 65 cents. 
 This sounds extremely well to the general public and leaves the Com- 
 
 K 
 
H 
 
 It 
 
 i 
 
 '^ 
 
 missioner in the graceful pose of ]>ul)lic benefactor. Will he go further 
 and tell what the secret rates on live cattle were during the same 
 period ? Mr. Fink attempts to show that the increased rate makes 
 little difference in the price paid by the Eastern consumer. If the 
 dressed beef industry is crippled by the actions of the railways the price 
 of beef in New York will advance to the extortionate price demanded 
 and obtained when the consumer was at the mercy of the stock yard 
 and abattoir rings. 
 
 How does it strike the general public to see a legitimate industry so 
 betrayed and robbed because the bringing of dressed beef iuto New 
 York Citv hurts the abattoir and stock vard rings, and makes them sell 
 meat at a reasonable price instead of at the extortionate figures de- 
 manded and obtained before Western dressed !)eef came upon the 
 market -t With the past record of the pool management are we to be- 
 lieve in Mr. Fink' s neutrality ? In the face of repeated violations of 
 compacts, rates, agreements, awards, are we not to expect that the 35 
 cent rate on cattle will be secretly cut, as it always has been, while the 
 prohibitory rate on dressed beef will be exacted ? When Mr. Fink 
 decides that fair rates on both live stock and dressed beef shall govern 
 without reference to stock yanl dividends or abattoir profits we 
 shall begin to believe in his neutrality. Until then we are forced to 
 regard him as the exponent of methods for perpetuating stock yard 
 and abattoir combination to raise the price of food, and the would-be 
 executioner of the dressed-beef industry, which has cheapened food to 
 the consumer and stimulated cattle raising on the ])rairies. 
 
 Armouk & Co. 
 
 LETTER OF G. F. SWIFT, GIVINCi A HISTORY OF THE CATTLE RING. 
 
 Chicago, 111. , February 23, 1 S86. — Editoi^ of the TrPnme : I no- 
 tice in your issue of Saturday, February 20, a letter from 8. W. Al- 
 lerton, and as Mr. Allerton cuts a large figure in the Eastern stock 
 yards monopoly, and has given you his side of the question and has made 
 some reference to me, I feel justified in answering the same. August 
 24, 1878, the freight rate on dressed beef was made once and 50-100 
 the rate on live cattle. A railroad meeting was held at Cleveland in 
 December, 1878, at which a move was made by the New York Cen- 
 tral and Pennsylvania Railroad interests to advance the pro rate rate 
 on dressed beef to once and 00-100 the live cattle rate. This propo- 
 sition was opposed by L. J. Seargeant, who was then, and is now, 
 traflic manager of the Grand Trunk Railway, and is now also Vice- 
 President of the Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway. I was at that 
 time strongly importuned by Mr. Allerton and others interested with 
 
 him in the perpetuation of the Eastern stock yards, to waive my ob 
 jection to the dressed beef rate Inking made once and ()0- 100 the 
 live cattle rate, but as I did not yield to ^Ii*. Allei-tons impoilunities 
 and as Mr. Seargeant would not consent to the dressed beef rate l^e- 
 ing made higher than once and 50-100 live cattle rate, the said rate 
 of once and 50-100 was continued, and the meeting adjourned. At a 
 railroad meeting at Commissioner Fink's oflice in New York City, 
 June 13, 1879, on the motion of J. H. Rutter, of the New York Cen- 
 tral Railroad, the diessed beef rate was made once and (iO-KHUive 
 
 cattle rate. 
 
 In April, 1885, there were issueil fi'om the ofiice of Thomas C. 
 Moore, joint agent of the east-bound pool from Chicago, a series of 
 inteiTogatories to be answered by live cattle and dressed beef shippers. 
 The said interrogatories were answered and returned to Mr. Moore, 
 who forwarded them to Commissioner Fink at New York City. The 
 cattle shippers and dressed beef shippers were invited to meet the 
 railroad representatives at the Windsor Hotel, New York City. April 
 11, 1883, and discuss the relative * rates of freight to be charged on 
 live cattle and dressed beef. This meeting was very largely attended 
 by members of the Eastern stock yards ring, who were granted special 
 privileges in said meetings. Two meetings were held on April 1 1 , 
 and two meetings on April 12, at which the dressed beef shippers fully 
 demonstrated that, in justice, the proportionate rate on dressed beef 
 as compared to live cattle should be reduced, but Commissioner Fink, 
 leaving out of consideration the fact that Chicago dressed beef was at 
 that time selling in New York City at about J cent a pound less than 
 home dressed beef, recommended to the trunk line committee a pro rate 
 advance on di*essed beef as compared to live cattle, which recommend- 
 ation the committee did not adopt. 
 
 Within two weeks following our meeting at the Windsor Hotel I 
 was interviewed by a representative of the New York Central Railroad 
 and of T. C. Eastman, the cattle shipper, who now is a large abattoir 
 owner of New York City, who said that Mr. Eastman and other New 
 York cattle shippers did not wish to array themselves in a bitter fight 
 against the Chicago dressed beef shippers, and if Annour & Co. , Ham- 
 mond «& Co. and Swift & Co. would cease shipments of dressed beef to 
 New York City and west of the Hudson River, the freight question 
 would be permanently dropped, but that unless dressed beef shij)- 
 ments to New York City and west of the Hudson River were discon- 
 tinued the entire strength of the New York cattle shippers, the New 
 York butchers, the Eastern stock yards interests, the New York Cen- 
 tral Railroad and the Pennsylvania Railroad would be combined 
 against the Chicago dressed beef interest until its destruction was ac- 
 complished. 
 
10 
 
 11 
 
 % 
 
 
 , 
 
 '• 
 
 
 ^'^ : 
 
 Pr J 
 
 I answered the representative that I was under contract to ship 
 beef to New York City and west of the Hudson River, and that I 
 should endeavor to caiTy out my contract whatever might be the re- 
 sult. 
 
 In October, 1884, another arbitration of freight rates was forced 
 upon us by the railroads, at which time a proper subject for inquiry, 
 viz. : "The Cost of Transportation to the Railroa<l Companies," was 
 not considered, and, although I believe from the sht)wing made by the 
 dressed beef interest that the pro rate freight rate should have been 
 reduced, yet, as no two of the arbitrators could agree, the award was 
 made by Judge Cooley, who was appointed by the railroad companies 
 chairman of said arbitration, and by the railroad companies given full 
 authority to declare a verdict himself if any two of the arbitrators 
 should be unable to agree, and according to the articles of submission 
 drawn up by the railroad companies his verdict in such event was " to 
 be linal. " No two of the arbitrators did agree, and Judge Cooley then 
 rendered the decision, that, in his opinion, once and 75-100 the live 
 cattle rate was a just rate on dressed beef, and in accordance with 
 his decision this rate was put into effect fi-om Dec(»mber :^1, 18H4. 
 
 Of course it was not to be expected that both jiarties would be sat- 
 islied. and, in fact, neither party, the live cattle shippers nor the 
 dressed beef shippers were satisfied; and vet after the award having 
 been made by Judge Cooley (the railroad representative), whose de- 
 cision was "to be final," the dressed beef interest was au-ain, in Feb- 
 nuiiy, 188G, asked to submit arguments to Commissioner Fink, of the 
 tnuik line pool, for him to reconsider the arguments and himself de- 
 cide what relative rates on live cattle and dressed beef should be 
 charged, giving no voice in the matter to the dressed beef inter<^st, and 
 the only reason given by the railroad companies for the reopening of 
 the question was that ''the live cattle shippers were dissatisfied." 
 February 18, the trunk lines, acting on Commissioner Fink's recom- 
 mendation, made rates as follows, to take effect March 1. 1886: Live 
 cattle 35 cents per hundred pounds: dressed beef 65 cents per hundred 
 pounds. Under this decision the dressed beef rate is once and85.6f)§ 
 the live cattle rate, instead of once and 75-100 the live cattle rate 
 and the railroad companies have further given notice that from and 
 after March 1.1886, the rates on dressed meats and live stock shall not 
 be established on a fixed percentage basis between live stock and 
 dressed meats, this action being evidently taken in order to endeavor 
 to release the railroad companies from just claims of the di-essed beef 
 shippers, which would be due them upon a relati\e rate basis in case 
 live cattle rates were cut. 
 
 This late action of the joint Executive Committee, acting on recom- 
 
 mendation of Commissioner Fink, in catering to the Eastern live stock 
 shippers and Eastern stock yard interest, fully demonstrates that it is 
 not the welfare of the Western producer, or of the Eastern consumer 
 or of the general public, or of the railroads, that they are seeking to 
 promote, but is the perpetuation of the eastern stock yards and abat- 
 toir interests. 
 
 G. F. Swift. 
 
 From the Tribune, February 21. 
 
 The action of the Trunk Lines in putting up the rates on dressed 
 beef seems to have produced a greater stir than was anticipated. 
 Naturally, the men who have invested millions in abattoirs, cooling- 
 houses and refi'igerator-cars for the purpose of preparing and trans- 
 porting dressed beef will not submit to any further discrimination 
 against their interests without making a strong fight. Just how that 
 fight will be made has not yet been determined, but attorneys are 
 now at work defining a plan of action, and the policy to be pursued 
 will probably be outlined within a few days. At an informal confer- 
 ence of the leading dressed beef shippers yesterday it was decided to 
 work in harmonv with Armour & Co. in carrving the matter before 
 the courts, and to leave no stone untiu"ned to right what they term a 
 grevious wrong. The letter written by S. W. AUerton and published 
 in yesterday's papers was the subject of considerable comment, and 
 that part of it attacking Mr. Swift was denounced in strong terms. 
 The language applied to Mr. Swift was considered extremely harsh, 
 ■even for Mr. Allei*ton. One of the firm of Armour & Co. , in com- 
 menting upon the letter, said: 
 
 ' 'Allerton charges the dressed beef business with being a monopoly, 
 and likens it to the Standard Oil Company. That is utterly untrue 
 and sheer nonsense. The dressed beef business can never be a mo- 
 nopoly with the consumers on one side and the prairies on the other. 
 It is as free to those who wish to engage in it as the business of rais- 
 ing cattle, and there is no patent of any kind to prevent any one 
 entering the field w ho may desire to do so. Mr. Alleiton knows that. 
 Less than a year ago he and a few of his railroad fi-iends formed a 
 pool to ship dressed beef from East St. Louis. They carried on a 
 sort of guerrilla business through the New England States, selling 
 their beef from the cars at auction. The movement was undertaken 
 simply to injure those who were already in the business. They had 
 no facilities for competing in the business, as they had not expended 
 their money to obtain them. The result was they lost all the money 
 the pool contributed. The next move of the live-stock men 
 
 "■ ^ . 
 
12 
 
 13 
 
 ;' 
 
 '' r^'\-^' 
 
 was in connection with their railroad allies to get the dressed beef 
 rate raised to a point that would become too burdensome to bear, and 
 thus crush the business. They have been more successful in that 
 direction and have practically reached the point where the dressed 
 beef men have no recourse but to fight. This the dressed b«^ef men 
 are determined to do in the courts and at Washington imtil redress or 
 relief of some kind is obtained. 
 
 *'Mr. Allerton's personal allusions to Mr. Swift will doubtless be 
 treated in the proper manner and at the proper time, but his talk 
 about monopoly comes very inconsistently from a man who has, for 
 twenty years, been the exponent of and a partner in the greatest and 
 most disgraceful monopoly the country has ever experienced. The 
 public certainly cannot forget the times when the 'evening-up' proc- 
 esses were engaged in, when a few cattle shipi>ers received an enor- 
 mous toll from the trunk lines for every car-load of live stock that was 
 shipped to the seaboard, whether shipped by themselves or others. 
 This outrageous monopoly, of course, made colossal fortunes for the 
 few, at the expense of the many, and the officials of the railroads 
 came in for their share. ' ' 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 Evcninq Journal, February 21. 
 
 ATTACKING THE DRESSED BEEF INDUSTRY. 
 
 The arbitrary action of the Trunk railroad lines in advancing the 
 rates for transporting dressed beef, is wrong from every point of view. 
 The new rates, which are 50 or 00 per cent above the old ones, were 
 adopted for the purpose of driving the dressed beef shippt^rs out of 
 business, in order that the shippers of live cattle and those who own 
 cattle-yards and slaughtering-houses at the East may make a gi'eater 
 profit. It is, in this respect, a direct interference by the railroad 
 companies with an important department of the general business c»f 
 the country, to destroy one branch of enterprise for the benefit of 
 another branch of enterprise. It proceeded from interested motive- 
 on the part of the railroad capitalists who made the order. They own 
 I)roprietary shares in live cattle enterprises, the value of which was 
 being impaired by the success of the dressed beef industry. It will 
 compel the people in the Eastern cities to pay a higher price for poorer 
 beef. It is a wanton attack on Western interests. Western enterprises 
 and Western methods that should awaken the resentment of AN'estern 
 people. The increased profits which Eastern railroad capitalists will 
 derive from their cattle-yard and slaughter-house proi>erty will be in 
 the nature of blood money extracted from the people. 
 
 The dressed beef shippers are yet uncei-tain what coui-se they shall 
 pursue. A very large amount of money has been invested by them in 
 abattoirs, in refrigerator cars and in other equipments for use in theii- 
 business. If they should abandon the production and shipment of 
 dressed beef, their losses in useless plants would be very gi'eat. Thert- 
 was no extraordinary profit at the best in preparing and shipping dead 
 meat. But it was becoming a profitable industry, and was growing in 
 extent, with the promise of considerable profit in the future. 
 
 Either way, the increased rate i.f transportation for di'essed beef 
 will come out of the cattle raisers, the farmers or the ranchmen, in the 
 end, as the producers always suffer from the extortions of monoi>oly. 
 If the dressed beef shippers should go out of business, it will leave an 
 oversupply of live cattle, which will cause a decrease in their value. 
 If they should continue in business they will be compelled to pay less 
 
 #% 
 
14 
 
 15 
 
 for cattle in order to make up for the increased freight exacted by the 
 railroads. It is the man who raises the cattle at the West and the 
 people who eat beef at the East who will be the sufiPerers from this 
 advanced policy of the railroad trunk monopoly lines. 
 
 THE DRESSED BEEF WAR THE SITUATION PRACTICALLY UNCHANGED. 
 
 Evening Jouimal February 20, 1886. 
 
 There seems to be no change to-day in the war on drensed beef. 
 'The dressed beef men, however^ are not going to lie down and submit 
 •without making a vigorous fight, not only in the States, ivherever it 
 •can be done, but also in Congress and in the courts. They believe 
 that the discrimination against the di'essed beef interest is unjustifiable 
 :and unreasonable, and cannot be upheld either in law or equity. They 
 •claim that the railroads are already charging them more to carry fifty 
 ^\e pounds of dressed beef to New York than they charge the live 
 cattle men to caiTy 100 pounds. There is no doubt whatever that the 
 present acticm is an attempt on the part of the live cattle shippers, 
 assisted by their allies, the railroad officials, who are personally inter - 
 •ested in stock yards, stock cars and termini abattoirs, to crush the 
 dressed beef business. 
 
 The roads have, it is claimed, for a long time acted in bad faith 
 with the di-essed beef shippers by charging them high rates of fi'eight, 
 and giving the live cattle shippers large drawbacks. This is seen, say 
 the dressed beef men, in the ain'mm which has brought the present 
 action, and they say further that they can not Jind will not submit to 
 it any longer. They claim that by their improved meth<jds they give bet- 
 ter and cheaper beef to the peoi)le, and the general public are as much 
 benefited as they are themselves by the interest being treated fairly. 
 They have submitted at various times in the past to increasi^d rates of 
 freight instigated by the dissatisfaction of the live cattle shippers, 
 because they felt they had no recourse. The last bui'den, however, 
 has now been placed on the camel's back, the dressed beef men being 
 "the camel," and they vow that if there is any virtue in the courts or 
 in Congress they are determined to find it. Tht^ letter published by 
 Mr. Allertoii to-day, they say, contains no new features, and that he 
 has been the representative of one of the most stupendous monopolies 
 the country has ever seen. A few men have been enormously enriched 
 at the expense of the people and the stockholders of the railroads. 
 He and his railroad friends have tried various expedients, both in 
 shipping dressed beef from St. I^ouis and selling it at auction from the 
 •cars throughout New England, in order to injure the dressed beef busi- 
 ness. Failing in that they have instituted this new attack by putting 
 
 such burdensome rates upon the business that it cannot stand it. The 
 result of this controversy will be watched with interest by everybody 
 all over the country who take an interest in getting their food pro- 
 ducts at the lowest prices, and the dressed beef men say that it is not 
 a war in which those immediately connected with the business have 
 the greatest interest. 
 
 Daily Business, February 23. 
 
 It is not improbable that the railroad magnates who compose the 
 pool have laid themselves liable to prosecution and punishment for 
 conspiracy against the Chicago dressed beef packers, and if there is 
 ground for action in that direction it may be set down as certain that 
 an appeal to the courts will be resorted to. Luckily, the parties 
 whose property has been put in jeopardy by competitors (operating 
 through Commissioner Fink) have unlimited money and resources, 
 and thev will not lie still to be walked over and mashed into the 
 ground. 
 
 In assuming the right to regulate the private business of their 
 patrons or ' ' equalize the profits ' ' of such business — where such inter- 
 ference is clearly a gross invasion of private rights, equally clearly 
 opposed to public policy, and contrary the trustees of the Trunk Lines 
 of railway to a well-defined popular sentiment-^rshow themselves to be 
 singularly blind to the nature of the duties they owe to the public and 
 reckless of their own interests. In this instance they have invited a 
 conflict which can onlv have one result, and that result will be the 
 enactment of a general law which will render discrimination against 
 individuals or localities impossible in the futiu'e, and forever put it 
 beyond the power of joint owners of railroad and Standard Oil or stock 
 yard shares to stifle competition and build up oppressive monopolies. 
 
 So long as railroad pools confine themselves to the duty of prevent- 
 ing ruinous competition for passengers and freight between rival lines 
 they may be tolerated. When they hoist the black flag and start out 
 upon a career of organized piracy against our internal commerce, it is 
 time for the Congfress of the United States to stretch forth its hand for 
 the protection of the people. That time has now arrived. 
 
 DRESSED BEEF ON THE RAIL. 
 
 Chicago Tribune. February 22. 
 
 The question of the charges for transportation of dressed beef 
 from the West to the East really involves the whole problem of rail-i 
 road privilege. The managers have asserted it as their right to pro- 
 tect one class interest at the expense of all the rest, and levy a dire^^ 
 
 UViJi 
 
 y> *B>.^ » rj^; .j ,M yy- 
 
 •* > • -K*^ 
 
16 
 
 17 
 
 ri- 
 
 tax for the express purpose of preventing their proteges from being^ 
 injured by the enterprise of those who would feed the people more 
 cheaply than before. In so doing they have carried the doctrine of 
 protection to a length which its political advocates have scarcely dared 
 to plead for, however much they may have been in favor of it. They 
 profess to regard it as their duty to protect the shippers of live-stock 
 to the East from the eifects of competition by the slaughterers of the 
 West. They say, in effect, to the residents on our Atlantic seaboard 
 that the latter must pay a price for meat whicli will permit the same 
 to be supplied on equal terms by those who kill the animals at the East 
 after having paid toll to the live-stock eveners of the coimtry. In 
 other words, they are committed to a policy which is more offensive 
 than trades' unionism in its worst form, and has not even the same 
 apology as has that for its preservation. They seem to feel that the 
 evener of live-stock is an eminently respectable man (which has never 
 been called in question), and for that reason they cannot consent to 
 have him abolished. 
 
 And so these "common carriers" insist upon charging nearly 50 
 per cent more for the transportation of the beef as dressed than they 
 want for carrying it on the hoof, though no one can deny that the ani- 
 mal is a much more um*uly and unwieldy thing Ix^fore death than after- 
 ward. We gave the figures in The Tribune of yesterday showing that 
 the charge is 52 cents for hauling the same num])er of pounds of dead 
 weight both ways against only H5 cents if the loail be alive wh(»n it begins 
 the journey eastward. They do not pretend that any equivalent is 
 rendered for the exaction of the extra 17 cents, nor can they prove any 
 loss of business as an excuse therefor. The hide, horns and tallow of 
 the animal may remain behind, while the meat goes forward, but a 
 large pai*t of the first will ultimately be shipped in the shape of leather, 
 and the last as soap or ' 'butter, * ' while even the entrails go to the sea- 
 board arid thence to Europe under the name of ' 'casings" for sausage- 
 meat. It may be added that the freight both ways on the tinned plate 
 used here for canning portions of the carcass, and the transportation 
 charges on the fertilizers which are manufactured from the oft'al and 
 then sent East, fully make up any little differcuice remaining, so that 
 the railroad actually loses nothing in the shai)e of business by the 
 slaughtering of the animals here instead of at the seaboard. It thus 
 becomes a merely vexatious imp(»sition which has no other excuse than 
 the wish to i)rotect certain interests for which th(5 manager of the rail- 
 road, in his capacity of common carrier, has no right to have any care 
 or concern. It is no more of his business whether or not those inter- 
 ests are crowded to the wall to give place to others than it is to inquire 
 how the welfare of the man in the moon will be affected. 
 
 A SUICIDAL POLICY. 
 
 Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette, February 22, ISSG. 
 
 The railway corporations could not have adopted a more effectual 
 method of convincing Congress and the country of the absolute neces- 
 sity for placing them under Government restriction than they have 
 done in arbitrarily and outrageously discriminating against the ship- 
 pers of dressed beef. The Trunk Lines interested have agreed (the 
 shippers of dressed beef charge that they have "conspired together") 
 to increase the rates to such an extent that the effect will be to 
 destroy the dressed beef business altogether. As a consequence, the 
 only recourse which those engaged in that industry^have left to them 
 is an appeal to the courts and to the law-making power, which thej 
 propose to make as jDromptly and vigorously as possible. 
 
 The beef -packing interest has grown to very large dimensions, and 
 it will not be crushed out at the mere dictum of a railway pool. That 
 the consumers of beef all over the country, and especially in the popu- 
 lous cities of the East, will give their moral support to the packers 
 and shippers in their conflict with the raih'oads is not to be doubted. 
 Not only is the health of the public deeply involved in this matter, 
 since the beef can be shipped to the point of consumption in much 
 better condition when dressed than while on the hoof, but the tortures 
 that are saved to the animals is an additional reason why the business 
 should be fostered and encouraged. 
 
 The live-stock interests of the AVest, aided by those who control 
 the stock yards at various points, are alleged to be at the bottom of 
 the so-called conspiracy. The rate now charged for dressed beef is 
 85 per cent in advance of the rate charged for live-stock, and the 
 argument of those engaged in beef packing is that this discrimination 
 is imposed not for the purpose of earning money for the stockholders, 
 but to force the packers into bankruptcy. Suits will be instituted at 
 once, and in the light of a number of recent decisions in the State 
 Courts, there is not much doubt that, if the charges can be sustained, 
 the offending corporations will be mulct in heavy damages. In the 
 meantime every influence will be brought to bear upon Congress td 
 pass the CuUom Inter- State Commerce bill. 
 
 A BIT OF HISTORY. 
 
 Chicago Times, February 22, 1886. 
 
 The motives of railroads in making tariffs and their disinterested 
 efforts toward equalizing adverse interests — vide Commissioner Fink's 
 late letter regarding the causes for advancing the dressed beef rates — 
 will always bear inspection. Probably no more pertinent instance of 
 
 . i. 
 
 /Jif fJir ,.^Jfr.-^y rt-;-^^!^^!'-^,-* \. T^^ ^^ 
 
'\ ' 
 
 
 
 ^f-. 
 
 fl, i 
 
 18 
 
 the manner in which railway officials may be induced to lend them- 
 selves to the schemes of outsiders, and discriminate as between parties 
 in the same industry, could be adduced than tliat of the old ''evener 
 pool." Its history has been published in this paper, and it was an 
 infamous one, a plan by which the railroads deliberately gave to a trio 
 of capitalists the power to levy a tax of $15 a car-load on every car of 
 live-stock originating west of Buffalo and Pittsburgh, and shipped to 
 the New Yoi'k market. 
 
 The formation of this pool was due to the fact that the railways 
 participating iii the business — the New York C-entral, Erie and Penn- 
 sylvania lim^s — in active competition for the traffic had suffered losses, 
 and with the idea of fortifying themselves they deliberately entered 
 into a scheme that virtually turned the control of the business over to 
 three outsiders. This trio wen^ the principal buyers in the West, and 
 owned or controlled the stock yards at Jersey City, Buffalo, Pittsburgh 
 and New Y(jrk. They were supposed to direct tlie shipments from the 
 West over the three roads mentioned in the proportions agreed upon, 
 and in return were to and did receive from the lailroads $15 for each 
 car delivered at their stock yards. The natural result of such an out- 
 rageous system followed. Every live-stock shipj)er in the country was 
 at their mercy. In any capacity, that of buytT, dealer or shipper, 
 they were enabled to crowd out any one not in the ring, their bonus, 
 rebate or whatever it may be called, of $15 a car giving th«»m an ad- 
 vantage that shut out everybody else, while as eveners of the traffic 
 all they had to do was to dire(;t the shipments according to the divis- 
 ions agreed upon and gather in the toll of $15 paid over to them by 
 the pliant roads. It is almost beyond belief that such a system as this 
 could obtain for any length of time, but it lasted and was in full effect 
 from June, 1875, to the summer of 1879, when the ring was broken 
 up by threatened congressional action. The only excuse or reason 
 given by the ix)ads for entering into the combination was that they 
 deemed it best to enter into such relations in order to maintain steady 
 rates, which they had been unable to do before allowing the formation 
 of the pool. The illustration is merely given to show that the motives 
 behind the action of the railway officials, pertinent at this time in the 
 dressed beef and live-stock controversy, cannot always be determined 
 by the reasons they give to the public. When the inside history of 
 the present move shall have been uncovered it will be found that stock 
 yard interests are more concerncni in the making of the rates than any 
 desire to impartially adjudicate between the live-stock and dressed 
 beef traffic. 
 
 19 
 
 Neiv York Times, February 24, 1886. 
 Armour & Co.'s open letter seems to call for further explanations 
 from Commissioner Fink, concerning the rates on dressed beef. Their 
 figures show that those rates have changed from time to time since 
 1878, so that they have been at first fifty, then sixty, and then sevent\ - 
 five and are now eighty-five and two-thirds per cent more than the 
 rates for live-stock, and that they are not fair even upon the Commis- 
 sioner's "principle"' that the rate for a pound of dressed beef should 
 be the same when the beef is carried in a live animal that it is when 
 the beef is carried as beef. The Commissioner showed an apparent 
 desire to maintain both branches of the business by means of railroad 
 rates, and declared that railroad companies had ' ' no right to aid one 
 party in destroying the business of the other." It certainly has no 
 right to protect one branch of this business at the exj^ense of the i>eo- 
 ple, simply because railroad men and railroad companies have large 
 sums invested in stock yards and abattoirs. But what right has a 
 railroad company to interfere with the beef trade for the purix>se of 
 counteracting the results of legitimate competition ? As a common 
 carrier it should take the fi*eight offered by both parties and can-y it at 
 fair rates, without any anxiety about the fortunes of either. But if 
 the railroads themselves, and the men who control them, have capital 
 invested on one side, they will impose rates for the benefit of that side. 
 
 COMMISSIONER FIXK ON "BEEF. " 
 
 Chicago Tribune, February 26, 1886. 
 On the principle of "hear both sides" we print in this issue a let- 
 ter from Commissioner Fink in reference to the rates charged for the 
 transportation of dressed beef by rail from the West to the Atlantic 
 seaboard. And we call attention to it as a specimen of special pleading 
 which is so strongly "special" as to defeat its own intention. He ^vTites 
 as if it were fair to make a reduction of five cents per 1(H) pounds from 
 the rates on both cattle and dressed beef that were paid l>efort^ the 
 railroad war, they being 40 and 70 cents respectively. But any one 
 can see that a drop to 85 cents in the one case should l)e accompanied 
 by a reduction to 01^ cents in the other, if the original ratio was a fair 
 one. That would be equivalent to 1*2 1 per cent off both. But the 
 figures we have already printed show that even that ratio is not a fair 
 one to the shipper of the beef, the true way of computing the charge 
 being to find the totil number of pounds hauled lx)th ways for a given 
 quantity of freight that is assessed with the cost. In fact this posi- 
 tion is abandoned by Mr. Fink in his next paragraph, which is devoteii 
 
 r n 
 
 /) 
 
\'-i 
 
 V 
 
 20 
 
 to a stafcement of the claim that the railroad managers regard it as 
 their duty to equalize the competition between the parties who are en- 
 gaged respectively in the transpijrtation of the beef on the hoof and 
 in the di'essed state. No one who has kept track of the controversy 
 thus far can fail to perceive that this is the sole motive for the dis- 
 <?rimination complained of — all the rest being nothing more or less 
 than apologies therefor. Hence it is the only point that merits an 
 answer. 
 
 The railroad men " ])ropose to put the live-stock and dressed beef 
 shipper upon exactly the same footing, so far as the cost of transport- 
 ing the net product is concerned,'' the railroad companies having '' no 
 right to aid one party in destroying the business of the other. ' ' And 
 who gave them the right to prevent one business from destroying 
 another in open and free com|)etition ? Who or what authority has 
 conferred upon them the power to step in and imi)ose a tariff that 
 shall prevent a business man from reaping any advantage by the 
 exercise of superior sagacity or enterprise ? Whence do they derive 
 the privilege to interfere^ as between rivals in the same or different 
 lines of business, and say that the one must pay them enough extra 
 for their services to place him on an exact equality with the other? 
 Where do they get the infallible minds which entitle them to repeal 
 the laws of trade, or the infallible consciences which enable them to 
 mete out exact justice to competitors? Plainly, the common law, 
 about which Mr. Fink has so much to say, does not authorize any such 
 thing, either by its letter or by ' ' spirit and intent. ' ' On the contrary, 
 that law is- framed on the principle of serving all parties alike, on 
 exactly equal terms, and charging to each in the same pro])ortion to 
 the actual value of the service rendered. 
 
 It has been shown that the transporting of 100 pounds of dressed 
 beef, with the necessary ice, and the return haul of the empty car are 
 worth 48 cents, if the hauling of 100 pounds of animal be worth 35 
 cents, including the return journey of the empty car. Thiw being es- 
 tablished, it is a rank injustice to charge more than 48 cents for the 
 one when 35 cents is accepted as sufl&cient com])ensation for the other; 
 and the overcharge should be resisted by every means within the reach 
 of the men who are actually discriminated against by it on the plea of 
 not allowing them an undue advantage over somebody else. We note 
 that the dressed beef shippers have taken this view of the matter, and 
 have entered a formal protest against the extortion. They have noti- 
 fied the railroad men that if ciimpalled to pay the rate which is an- 
 nounced to go into effect next Monday, they will do so with the distinct 
 understanding that they reserve the right to ask the courts to order a 
 return of the money. 
 
 21 
 
 The letter of Commissioner Fink is a plea for the assumed right 
 to throw the mantle of protection around certain owners of live-stock 
 yards and abattoir interests and other friends of the railroad managers 
 — in some cases the managers themselves. It does not say so, and 
 for that reason may fairly be called disingenuous. It is saying of one 
 thing and meaning of another. The idea that the managers of our 
 railroad traffic are actuated by a desire to prevent unjust discrimina- 
 tion and the building up of monopolies is so utterly at variance with 
 their practice in the past that no intelligent man can fail to assign the 
 true motive for their action now. It is not difficult to fancv the 
 writer of the letter and his friends laughing in their sleeves at the idea 
 of the public being imposed upon by the utterance of such gilded un- 
 truths. 
 
 DRESSED BEEF FREIGHT DISCRIMINATION. 
 
 Cincinnati Price Cin^enf. February 25, 1886. 
 
 On general principles it might be thought that, in the adjustment 
 of fi-eight rates for articles which enter largely into the make-up of 
 business for transportation lines, that the relative cost of hauling would 
 be an element of consideration. But this is not the rule — or is not the 
 case with reference to hauling dressed beef from the West to seaboard 
 cities and Eastern markets. 
 
 Railroad managers and operators have become parties in interest to 
 the construction of stock yards along the lines of through transit, and 
 at the termini. Therefore they are interested in maintaining the bus- 
 iness of shipping live-stock, having interests conflicting with Western 
 enterprise which slaughters the stock and sends the dressed carcass to 
 market, which pays no tribute to stock yards. 
 
 It is such imposition upon legitimate business interests which in- 
 cite efforts for legislation for prevention or punishment of discrimina- 
 tion in freight rates. Such evils can not be endured without protest 
 and without endeavor to have them corrected. 
 
 Just now the pool lines between the East and West have widened 
 the margin between live cattle and dressed beef- not because it was 
 less profitable to the railway to haul the dressed beef, but because the 
 live-stock shippers and stock yard stockholders want something more 
 than had previously been done in a restrictive way against the dressed 
 beef industry. 
 
 Raisers of cattle in the West are greatly interested in this question, 
 for in proportion to maintenance and growth of the Western slaughter- 
 ing au4 dressea beef shipping iudustiy will values of cattle be maiu- 
 
 ^-^Swf 
 
22 
 
 tained— especially in view of the great expanfiion in the business of 
 producing beef cattle. If the railroads are to jmrsue such methods as 
 are now receiving notice, it will be a severe blow to the cattle raiser, 
 whose facility for advantageous marketing of stock will be restricted. 
 The argument introduced in support of the discriminati<m against 
 dressed beef might logically be brought also against the pork ship- 
 ments of the West to the East, for consumption or export, on the 
 ground that the product should not have a freight rate that should 
 allow the value of the article in the Eastern market to be less than 
 what the Eastern slaughterer m\d packer could i)rofitably compete with. 
 But the pork industry grew in the West bef.)re ])ooled lines were 
 known, while the dressed beef business is comparatively new. It will 
 gain the ascendency, however, and ere long, as it should be, practi- 
 cally the entire business of slaughtering Western cattle will be done in 
 the West. 
 
 > 
 
GAYLAMOUNT 
 PAMPHLET BINDER 
 
 Monuf octurad by 
 [GAYLORD BROS. Inc. 
 SyrocuM, N.Y. 
 Sfocktoa Collf. 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 This book is due on the date indicated below, or at the 
 expiration of a definite period after the date of borrowing, as 
 provided by the library rules or by special arrangement with 
 the Librarian in charge. 
 
 DATE BORROW£0 
 
 OATC DUE 
 
 DATE BORROWED 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C28<25t)IOOM 
 
 
 
 
 m^ . 1 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 ,'i 
 
 ! 
 
 • ( 
 
 \ ■ v.; 
 
 
 '■fi 
 
 
 0,. 
 
 D302«12 
 
 P69 
 
 D302.12 
 
 P69 
 
 ■ IM ^^^^" facts regarding the attempted 
 
 destruction of the dressed beef 
 industry* 
 
 
 :,/ , 
 
'"^k 
 
 
END OF 
 TITLE