Mr. SANSOM. I have no special figures to show and I do not know. You people are in better position to get it than I am, but I feel quite sure that there are lots of this meat yet on hand. I am not informed in such a way that I can put my finger on it, but I think it is the truth that there is meat in New York, in the Government's cold storage plants to-day; beef that was bought in January and February and March of 1919 at 25 cents a pound.

Mr. ANDERSON. That beef which is being held in New York-
Mr. SANSOM. And in Chicago.

Mr. ANDERSON. Or in Chicago or elsewhere by the Government is not causing any slump in the market.

Mr. SANSOM. I should think it would have some effect. Everything of that kind has some effect. Look for a cause yourself. I do not know whether you are a producer and watch the market or not, but we do know this, we know that there were many beef steers sold in 1919 that lost as much as $60 a head, and in some instances more than that, many of them.

Mr. ANDERSON. And you think that result is due to the Government putting a few million cans of corn beef on the market?

Mr. SANSOM. No, sir; I would not say that. I said that I think it is due to the Government lending its influence in every way possible to cheapen the price of meat. That is what I said. It adds to it that much. They did other things besides that.

Mr. ANDERSON. You made the statement that 95 per cent of the people were consumers of meat and 5 per cent producers, and I wondered where you got those figures.

Mr. SANSOM. I think my statement was that 100 per cent of the people were supposed to be consumers and about 95 per cent of that 100 per cent were consumers and 5 per cent producers. They are the figures I get, from the best information I can get. I am not going to swear to them, and I do not believe anybody else could swear to those figures; but I think you can convince yourself, if you will think about it and figure on it some, that that is a fairly

correct statement.

Mr. ANDERSON. If there are only 5 per cent of the people in this country who are producing, I am afraid a lot of us will soon be starving.

Mr. SANSOM. I said producing meat.

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, producing meat.

Mr. SANSOM. And I do not mean by that producing chickens. 1 mean beef and pork, and I am willing to stand by the proposition and be criticized on it to whatever extent would be proper.

Mr. ANDERSON. I was just curious to know where you got such figures. I have never seen any like them myself.

Mr. SANSOM. Well, I did not get them out of the almanac, but I got them from figuring myself a lot as well as from others I figured with. How many people are producing meat in New York how many are producing meat in Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Washington? Why, in my own town-I figured on it some, and we are supposed to be about the biggest cattle town in Texas, Fort Worth, and we have only 50 or 60 cattlemen in that town. We have got 100,000 people, the way I quoted it, but they are trying to get it up to 125,000 now. I do not know whether they will make

it or not under the new census, but I do not believe 65 per cent of the people living there produce meat.

Mr. ANDERSON. I do not imagine there are 5 per cent of the people living in the large cities anywhere who are producing meat.

Mr. SANSOM. I want to call your attention to the fact that pretty nearly all of them have gone to the towns.

Mr. ANDERSON. You suggested that economy could be effected by reducing the number of retailers. Do you think it would help the situation if we were to reduce the number of retailers until five out of the total number handled 60 or 70 per cent of the total business? Mr. SANSOM. I have no idea of advocating experiments in anything. If you want to know what I had in mind, it has been a hobby of mine for many years that these packers ought to have been forced, if they would not do it otherwise, to go direct to the people with this meat in the condition they furnish it to the butchers, and then you could check that packer's price from there back to the steer he killed, and if he was profiteering it should be corrected. Now, I have had that in mind for years. I know, and it is stated in this statement, that a city administration is not a very economical business organization to handle business, but they only took out 15 per cent of the cost of this meat that they have sold in our towns to pay the cost, and I guarantee you they are not losing any money. Fifteen per cent on the price of a roast or a steak would be very little additional cost to the man who is buying his meat.

Mr. ANDERSON. I judge from that-

Mr. SANSOM. And that was my idea, if you will excuse me, since you asked the question, of what ought to be done. Now, it can not be done by law. It is fixed that they can not retail meat at all. Since they can not, I recommended to our people down there, and I think the cattle people of this country could correct it very much, if we would begin ourselves to see that this meat came to the people at a fair price.

Mr. ANDERSON. Then, that is one feature of the decree that you are not entirely in accord with. You would just as soon that that had not been settled.

Mr. SANSOM. Well, I am glad it was, for the reason that they were not doing any of it, anyhow, to amount to anything, or practically

none.

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, that is pretty generally true of the decree. Mr. SANSOM. How is that?

Mr. ANDERSON. I say, it is pretty generally true of the decree that the only things that were prohibited were things that they were not doing to any great extent.

Mr. SANSOM. Well, you can figure that out for yourself. According to my idea and what I know of the activities you will find there is a big lot of it.

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, let us go down the list and enumerate them, if you want to take some time on that. To what extent do you think the packers were engaged in the canned, dried, or salted fish business. Mr. SANSOM. Well, sir, I will not understake to answer that, but I know that they handled a good deal.

Mr. ANDERSON. They say it was a very small proportion of the total quantity, but I do not know how much.

Mr. SANSOM. I am not posted on that.

Mr. ANDERSON. To what extent do you think they were engaged in the grocery and dried-vegetable business.

Mr. SANSOM. Very much.

Mr. ANDERSON. You think that was very considerable?

Mr. SANSOM. Swift & Co. owned Libby, McNeill & Libby outright, every cent of the stock. It was just simply run over here as a sepa rate proposition.

Mr. ANDERSON. At the time of this decree.

Mr. SANSOM. Mr. McNeill is probably the biggest canning concern and the oldest canning concern in the United States, and they owned every dollar of the stock, and every dollar of the earnings of that stock went into Swift & Co.

Mr. ANDERSON. So you think this decree was useful in separating Swift & Co. from Libby, McNeill & Libby?

Mr. SANSOM. No; I would not say that because I think that this money which went from Libby and McNeill went into the pot, and by that I mean it reduced the cost of manufacturing this beef, the same as I do think the International Packing Co., which Swift & Co. owned, all the profits out of that and the South American company comes back and goes into the pot here and was owned just like Libby, McNeill & Libby. Under this decree that has to be separated and taken off.

Mr. ANDERSON. You are not under the impression

Mr. SANSOM. I am willing for them to make some money down there and bring it up here and put it in a pot to contribute to the expense of manufacturing this beef here.

Mr. ANDERSON. To what extent do you think the packers were engaged in manufacturing or distributing fresh, crushed, dried, evaporated, or canned fruits?

Mr. SANSOM. I would not undertake to give you any figures on that. That would be impossible. I do not know whether they give them out themselves or not.

Mr. ANDERSON. Do you think it was any considerable proportion of the total output?

Mr. SANSOM. Well, I should say it was quite a percentage, but I would not go on record as to any specific amount.

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, I do not think it is necessary to go into this any further.

Mr. SANSOM. In that connection, if you care to get my views on it

Mr. ANDERSON (interposing). I will just ask this one question: What proportion of the total business of the Big Five packers do you think is affected by these prohibitions in clause 4 of the decree?

Mr. SANSOM. My idea is it would be around 40 per cent-I mean of their profits. They are things they made more money out of than they did out of meat. I will just illustrate one little thing, if you want me to, along that line. In Fort Worth, when the packers. Swift and Armour, located there, there was no big machine shop to repair things that they had to make. Hence they built a machine shop there. They called it the Mechanical Co. They only had use for it a little for themselves and they went to work for the public. My understanding is, and I never knew this until the other day. when a gentleman came around to offer me some of the stock for sale to interest me in buying it, and I went into the details fully

and got a statement, and it shows that that Mechanical Co. made about 27 per cent per year, and it is a pretty good thing, and I expect, probably, to take some stock in it. They are forced to part company.

Mr. ANDERSON. That is a subsidiary of one of the corporations?
Mr. SANSOM. Yes; it was owned by Swift and Armour, absolutely.
Mr. ANDERSON. What is the name of it?

Mr. SANSOM. The Southwestern Mechanical Co. It is owned outright. If you would like to have my views about who put the packer over the bat, I think I could tell you. I think I know who started it and who furnished the money and made him turn loose all his groceries and other activities. He may have done a good thing. I am not criticizing that; but it was the wholesale grocer. When you will get these things cheaper or not I am going to leave it to you to figure out.

Mr. ANDERSON. You think it is a good thing for the packer to be separated from the grocery lines, but that it is perfectly satisfactory to leave the small creamery producer and the cheese producer and the poultry men at the mercy of the Big Five?

Mr. SANSOM. No: you misunderstood me. I did not say it was a good thing. I say it had been done, and I am not digging up dead bones now. I want now to go along, now that that has been done. I think it will make those meats more expensive, and I said so in this statement. I think it will increase the cost of the manufacturing of beef and pork.

Mr. ANDERSON. Your reason for thinking that is that Swift & Co. will not be able to use the profits from the Swift International and Libby, McNeill & Libby?

Mr. SANSOM. The volume of business and the profits they made out of those things added to their other profits, and the enormous amount of business that was done puts them in position to do this business cheaply. I am not a defender of the packer now, gentlemen, and I want you to understand that. I expect I have done my share of cussing them. I will venture to say that there is not a man in this room-and I challenge him to say that I have not been shipping cattle longer than any man here, and actively at it throughout my lifetime. I began when I was a 15-year-old boy, and I am not as young as I would like to be to-day. I have been actively in this business for 50 years, and I have cussed them as hard and as loud as anybody, and I think they have done some things they ought not to have done; but for the last two years or three years it looks to me like he is on the stool; and I want our business to go on and not be disturbed.

Mr. Vorer. I would like to ask you a question: If the law of supply and demand regulates the price of meat, how can the handling of groceries as a side line by the packers influence the price of meat? Mr. SANSOM. Only to the extent the profits that they make out of the groceries, which goes into the general profit account, enables them to do it that much cheaper. If you will let me, I will just explain why I think so. You are familiar-no doubt, more so than I am-with the manner of the packer distributing this meat to his branch house. He has a branch house, and there is a town with probably 15,000 people that does not need a carload of beef, hence he fills in that car with such groceries and canned goods as he handles, and

that enables him to put them down there and give them to the man who buys them cheaper than the wholesale grocer could, and that is the reason he wanted him out of business.

Mr. VOIGT. Do you not think the packers get all the money they can for their meats?

Mr. SANSOM. No, sir; I do not. I think they could sell it higher. I believe they could sell it higher, just like a banker in this city or New York could get a higher rate for his money if he would ask it, and does do so when he does ask it.

Mr. VOIGT. Then you are of the opinion that the packers can get a higher price for meat if they see fit to ask it?

Mr. SANSOM. I believe they could do it, but it would be a temporary affair, purely. We have a packing house right under the dome of Swift and Armour, in Fort Worth and they are making money and doing well. We have a packing house in Houston, and we have one in Dallas, and one in San Antonio, and many other places. We have a customer down there who told me the other day that he was killing beef for a butcher on a plan that I think ought to be adopted more or less. He was killing 30 cattle a day and he lived 30 miles from Houston, and was hauling it in there in an automobile and delivering it to a retail grocer.

Mr. VOIGT. I was not asking you about that.

Mr. SANSOM. Well, I was just explaining it. I thought you wanted information generally along this line.

Mr. VOIGT. No.

Mr. SANSOM. I beg your pardon if I gave you any you did not

want.

Mr. VOIGT. I asked you how the handling of groceries by the packers could affect the price of meat.

Mr. SANSOM. Just exactly

Mr. VOIGT. One moment; let me finish.

Mr. SANSOM. Do not make it too long because I can not keep it in my head.

Mr. VOIGT. I will try and make it plain.

Mr. SANSOM. All right.

Mr. VOIGT. I am asking you how the handling of groceries by the packers can affect the prcie of meat when the price of meat is fixed in an open and competitive market?

Mr. SANSOM. Only to the extent that the packers' profits out of the groceries they sell enables them to handle all other lines that much cheaper. If he was not handling anything but the groceries he could not sell them at all.

Mr. VOIGT. Do you mean to say that the packer is getting less for his meat to-day than he would get if he did not handle the groceries? Mr. SANSOM. No, sir; I did not say that, because I guess he is not working under the change. What I did say, and I am on record here on it, was that it was very probable that it would increase the cost to the consumer or take it off of the producer, one or the other; that is, the money that he made out of these groceries.

Mr. VOIGT. Are you still of the opinion that the packer sells his meat for less than he can get?

Mr. SANSOM. Certainly. I think the packer could raise this meat and these fellows would buy it to-morrow for 2 or 3 cents a pound