The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, April 21, 1919, Page 9

with its present handicaps, as great as those of the war period, and they are going to fight to. a man to squeeze the parasitic speculators out of the rail- - way business. “The state railway commission of Massachusetts has recently reported that the only adequate solu- tion of the electric railway breakdown and loss of credit and capital through plunder is for the .state to take them over and operate them. This has been foretold by public utility experts for three to five - years. : “Delos F. Wilcox warned the electric railways that they would soon be at the end of their string financially, at the Rochester conference of recon- struction again last year. Now they have come to it from the standpoint of the public. “But the electric railways themselves, in their greed for speculative profits, have forced themselves to adopt government ownership as the only escape from their sins. At the annual convention of the electric railway officials of the country last Oc- tober, the St. Louis and the Milwaukee companies came out for government ownership as the solution for their difficulties. “There is no great secret or complexity about this decided change which so illuminates the steam railway problem. The transportation systems of the country are run for speculative profit. A small amount of capital in money and a good prinung press for issuing stock and bonds will make prac- tically any company wealthy. “If the money is diverted to private pockets, if the officials become lazy and indifferent with their big profits lulling them to sleep, if they fail to show that boasted enterprise and initiative which is claimed for private as contrasted with public in- dustry, then the inevitable collapse soon approaches. “When the roads are run down and ecredit gone, then the big financiers who want the big profits, take their money and leave the in- nocent small investors to bear the burden of theu- wrongs.” Packers Can Sell Paper at Meat Prices Bureau of Chemistry Rules That This Gross Misuse of Consumers Is Legal Washington Bureau, Nonpartisan Leader. PROFIT of from 225 to 500 per cent upon paper wrappings of hams and bacon is one of the advantages which the big meat packers have secured through a favorable ruling from thé bu- reau of chemistry, in the United States department of agricul- ture. The retail buyer must pay for the paper at the same rate per pound as the ham or the bacon. They secured this rul- the consumer of from one-half cent to 3. cents a pound, as the butcher had to throw this expensive paper away and advance the price to the customer to get out whole. Notwithstanding the department of agriculture ruling, the government would not submit to this, and specified net weight in all army and navy contracts.” The first letters in the correspondence handed" to the house committee by Heney showed that Doc- tor Alsberg had confidentially told George L. Me- Carthy that new regulations were being prepared dealing with the question of net weight. McCarthy was secretary of the American Meat Packers’ ing as the result of ef- forts on the part of George P. McCabe, for- mer solicitor of the de- partment, whom they hired for the job. Me- Cabe received $2,000 for his work. The man who made the ruling was Doctor Alsberg, chief of the bureau of chem- istry and successor to Doctor Harvey W. Wi- ley, who was forced out . during the Taft admin- istration because of his fight against the food adulterators. Francis J. Heney has furnished. to the house committee on interstate and foreign commerce a series of 35 letters taken from the files of Armour & Co., which A recent ruling of the bureau of chem- istry legalizes the packing trust prac- tice of charging retailers for wrapping paper at meat prices. It means an in- crease of 2 to 4 cents a pound to the consumer on the wrapped meats and it means bigger profits to the trust. This decision, however, has a much wider effect. Doctor Harvey W. Wiley, until he was expelled by the special inter- ests, fought to construe the law as for- bidding not only directly harmful foods, but adulterations, misbranding and other methods of deceiving and victimizing the public on food prod- ucts. With his expulsion from the bu- reau of chemistry the worst elements in American business, the food sharp- ers, secured practically a free hand. The consumption of bad foods is having a serious effect on the health of the people. association, which in- cluded many of the small packing concerns. But he was also under a se- cret salary from the Big Five packers — getting $5,000 a year from them to play their game. “I think,” says the Washington spy for the Big Five packers, “the regulations will be sub- mitted to us for exami- nation before they are issued. However, from Doctor Alsberg I got the impression that there is nothing in them which would be contrary to what was ‘expressed at our meeting; in fact, that’ the regulations are ex-- ceedingly general in character, and that some- tell the story of this so- called net weight rul- ing and of McCabe's part in it. Heney gives this summary of the facts: “In the winter of 1914 it seemed likely that the bureau of chemistry would construe the pure food act- so that meats wrapped in paper would be con- sidered as a ‘package,” in which case they would have to be.sold at net weight. “The alarm was sounded. among the big packers, and an arrangement was made by which George P. McCabe, a former solicitor of the department of agriculture, was sent to Washington to try to secure a ruling that wrapped meats are not packages. He was to receive a fee of $1,000 and expenses, to be di- vided among the Big Five. It was understood that if successful more was to be done for him. After séveral months’ work he was successful in getting the decision sought and his fee was doubled. “In 1915 W. F. Bode caused thls matter to be reopened, acting for the Wholesale Grocers’ asso- ciation. Again Mr. McCabe was sent to Washing- ton and again he was successful. WHY PACKERS WERE INTERESTED “The reason that the packers were so anxious to get this ruling is disclosed by an investigation held at one of the Chicago packing plants in Jan- ~ uary, 1918. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PACK- ERS WERE SELLING THESE PAPER WRAP- PINGS AT FROM 225 TO 500 PER CENT PROF- IT, ACCORDING TO THE MEAT INSIDE THE PACKAGE. “According to testimony taken by the commis- sion this exaction caused an increase of price to what later more specific regulations will be made. “I suggest that you write a letter to Doctor Alsberg making an es- pecial request for these regulations, which will reinforce the request I made today. Instead of wntmg, I expect it .would be better for you to get in phone communication with Doc- tor Alsberg and have a three-minute talk with him.” McCABE HAS NEEDED “INFLUENCE” That was in January. On March 4 a letter from A. B. Stratton of Ar- mour & Co. to F. E. White says: “We are thinking of sending McCabe to Washington on the net weight regulations. He seems to be closer to the department than any one else. Creigh of Cudahy & Co., who has just retumed fro Washmgton, says . I"" !?, who is McCarthy’s% is all at sea and:}x _hausted his influen : torneys for tle Chicago packers are meeting today to discuss the subject, and the probable result will be that Mr. McCabe will be asked to go to Washington as their_representative. ' I take it that that is satisfactory to our principals all around.” McCabe came to Washington. Many telegrams and letters passed between” him and the big packers and - Me- Carthy. On May 26 he made a formal PAGE NINE Louis F. Swift, head of the largest of the Big Five packing companies and one of the autocrats- who dictate to producers and consumers and any one or anything else there is to dictate to in America. —Fight Goes Back to Removal of Doctor Harvey W. Wiley report on a number of matters, and his reference to the net weight decision read: “I find, very confidentially, that the solicitor’s office takes our view of the ‘package’ proposition under the net weight law, and that the solicitor’s office, mcludmg the committee acting under the solicitor, is of the opinion that the net weight law can not be made to apply to hams, shoulders, bacon and similar products. “I am also advised that Doctor Alsberg has read the brief filed (by McCabe) and has expressed the opinion that the regulations should be so modi- fied as to exempt these packing house products from the operation of the law, and that the term ‘package’ should be so defined as to make it refer only to an arbitrary-sized container; that is, a con- tainer into which can be placed an exact amount of food product. I understand also that Doctor Galloway is impressed strongly with this view and with the impracticability of enforcing a regulation which would require the marking of the net weight upon hams, bacon, ete.” EXTRA PAY TO ENCOURAGE McCABE The ruling in favor of the Big Five pack- ers was issued on June 5, and McCabe sent a triumphant telegram to that effect, late at night, to R. C. McManus of Swift & Co., at the Chicago stockyards. Within a few days Thomas Creigh of the Cudahy Packing com- pany wrote to the lawyers for the other big packers, calling attention to this valuable service, and suggesting that McCabe be paid $2,000 and expenses—a bonus of $1,000 on the fee originally promised. Creigh said it would be “very good pollcy to encourage him in such other work as we may call upon him to do if . we now show our appreciation of his present efforts, which certainly should save us each annually from a very considerable additional cost, agsuming that the rulings had gone the other way.” When the federal trade commission held C. C. Kleminhagen, a retail dealer, stated that he could sell bacon 2% cents a pound cheaper if he were not required to pay for the paper wrapped around it. John Lichtenscheidl, another witness at St. Paul, said that after re- fusing to pay full prices for paper on boiled ham from the Swift branch house, he bought his ham from a small packer in Minnesota at net weight—saving at least half a cent on every pound. Martin Ertle,_ a retail butcher at Fort Dodge, Iowa, testified that he could “sell bacon at from 2 to 4 cents lower if he did not have to pay for - the paper and string.” McCabe, Alsberg, the department of agricul- ture, the Big Five— they do their bit for.the high cost of living! They know how to co-operate for profit. hearings in St. Paul,