Mr. WELD. I do not believe you have told all the circumstances. There is no reason in the world why we should object to any improvement in the handling of eggs.

Mr. MARSH. Now, in this refrigerator car business; if we had the pooling of these cars, all owned by the carriers, we could ship them from one place to another, wherever they happened to be needed, couldn't we?

Mr. WELD. That is what we do now.

Mr. MARSH. Yes; that is what you do; but the little fellow can not do it, and he can not compete with you for several years, on your own admission.

Mr. CHAPLIN. Yes, he can; he is competing with us now.

Mr. MARSH. I am speaking of the use by the railroads of refriger

ator cars.

Mr. CHAPLIN. If the railroads will build a few thousand cars, it will be enough for everybody.

Mr. MARSH. A few thousand refrigerator cars?

Mr. CHAPLIN. That is all.

Mr. MARSH. On what basis do you make that statement?

Mr. WELD. There are nearly enough now. We have about 7,000. You see, most of these small packers do not have any great demand for refrigerator cars.

Mr. MARSH. No; they have not now; but what we want is for them to have this demand, and they want to have the chance to compete.

Mr. CHAPLIN. As their business develops they will get the cars. Mr. MARSH. That is just my point, Mr. Chaplin. We think it is the purpose of the railroads, and it is, under Government ownership, to develop equal opportunity for business, which we do not get under private ownership. Now, our point is that the little man ought to have that facility afforded by the railroads.

Mr. CHAPLIN. He can have it. He can acquire cars and use them the same as we acquire ours. He will not need any more than we do, in proportion.

Mr. MARSH. But he has not got the surplus earnings that you folks have got, and he has got to start out in a very much more difficult situation. Now, if I understand you correctly, you said that the railroads had been sufficiently starved under Government control. Is that correct?

Mr. WELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARSH. Now, you do not mean to apply that to the present situation? You do not think that this new railroad bill that turns everything over to them is starving them, do you?

Mr. WELD. I do not know. It will depend on how the Interstate Commerce Commission handles the rate question. I should say they would certainly need to make a lot of money to build some new tracks and cars and terminals and to put the present equipment in condition. I have not formed an opinion as to whether they are going to be able to do that or not.

Mr. MARSH. By the way, do you know how much railroad stock Mr. Swift owns?

Mr. WELD. I do not know.

Mr. MARSH. He owns quite a good deal?

Mr. WELD. Individually, a very little.

Mr. MARSH. The members of the Swift family are on the boards of directors of some of the railroads, are they not?

Mr. CHAPLIN. None of the Swifts are.

Mr. WELD. I do not think Swift is.

Mr. MARSH. The Armours are; but you will admit that the railroads can easily get funds to supply these cars?

Mr. CHAPLIN. I do not know; we do not know that.

Mr. MARSH. Now, you would not object to any provision, as I understand you, that the railroads should acquire all the refrigerator cars, if you could be assured of reasonably efficient service for the transportation of your products?

Mr. WELD. NO; I do not believe we would object.

Mr. MARSH. Do you know of any reason why you should be assured that any more than anybody else?

Mr. WELD. We know that it could not be done, and that it would be disastrous to us and to the country and to the farmers.

Mr. MARSH. They said the same thing, you know, when we started the Government regulation of the railroads, and that things were going to the devil.

Mr. WELD. It seems to have turned out that way pretty well. Nobody has been willing to put a dollar in railroads, and railroad stocks are a drag on the market.

Mr. MARSH. They have been looted.

Mr. WELD. That is true of only certain railroads; that is not true. of railroads as a whole.

Mr. MARSH. I have not time to go into that, but I am going to repeat that it is true of the railroads as a whole.

Mr. WELD. I say it is not.

Mr. MARSH. I have studied that subject quite a good deal, but there is no use of encumbering the record with that proposition. However, you do not deny that railroad rates have been increased under Government operation less than prices of meat products and packer's profits?

Mr. WELD. I do not know whether that is true or not; I do know railroad rates have not been increased enough during the last eight years to allow the railroads to have an honest living and keep up with the industrial development of the country.

Mr. MARSH. I was talking about the increase of railroad rates. under Government operation. Do you mind stating how the average price of your chief products compares now with the price three years ago?

Mr. WELD. Let us see. It is in the yearbook. Of course, the price of finished products-probably about twice as much; and, of course, the price of raw material has gone up fully as much in proportion.

Mr. MARSH. I was not discussing that. That applies to material and supplies of the railroads and to wages they pay, too. But I am asking what the ultimate result has been in finding out which has been the more efficient.

Mr. WELD. How do you mean? Are you going to compare the efficiency of railroads to packing plants in comparison with increase in prices?

Mr. MARSH. I am going to get side lights on it.

Mr. CHAPLIN. I think the packers have been more efficient.

Mr. MARSH. What percentage has your price of beef increased in the last three years?

Mr. CHAPLIN. That is not the measure of efficiency-the price of beef increases.

Mr. MARSH. I am asking for information.

Mr. CHAPLIN. It depends on the price of cattle, it seems to me, somewhat.

Mr. MARSH. All right. That enters in, but I am just asking now, and I will make my own deductions on the price of cattle later. What has been the increase in prices of beef?

Mr. CHAPLIN. I do not want to take that in any way to measure the efficiency of the packing companies; that has nothing whatever to do with efficiency.

Mr. MARSH. Your objection to my interpretation is going into the record, if you don't mind, and I appreciate your courtesy in giving this information. I notice that Mr. Armour is keen for a big increase in railroad rates promptly, perhaps presenting them with a 50 per cent increase.

Mr. CHAPLIN. Any man who is not able to get cars to conduct his business would necessarily want the railroads to have money to get the equipment. In 1916 the average price of our beef in four of the large cities-New York, Philadelphia, Washington, and Chicagowas $11.82 per hundredweight; in 1919 it was $18.97.

Mr. MARSH. All right; hogs.

Mr. CHAPLIN. I have not got the price of hogs.

Mr. MARSH. Sheep.

Mr. CHAPLIN. I have nothing but the beef. I have got the price of live cattle and hogs. The price of live cattle in 1916 was $7.21; in 1919, $11.04; and I have got the price of hogs-in 1916, $8.49; 1919, $18.21.

Mr. MARSH. Will you give 1917 for the record?

Mr. CHAPLIN. The price of beef in the four cities in 1917 was $13.78, and the price of cattle for that year was $8.66 and the price of hogs $12.89.

Mr. MARSH. In discussing the right or propriety of Congress to enact legislation creating a commission to control the packers, I understood you to say, Mr. Weld, that you thought this was unfair unless it did the same thing for all big corporations.

Mr. WELD. Otherwise, class legislation; and there is no more reason why we should be singled out for this new form of corporate control than there is that other private corporations should be.

Mr. MARSH. Do you say Mr. Colver said that, too?

Mr. WELD. I understood Mr. Colver to say that any sort of legislation should be general rather than special.

Mr. MARSH. I do not see how it could be, because Mr. Colver has indorsed the principles of this legislation.

May I ask you this: What is to insure the enforcement of this consent decree?

Mr. CHAPLIN. The United States court.

Mr. WELD. It is to be enforced the same as any order of the court. Mr. MARSH. Of course, it is clearly shown that the packers have been violating the injunction issued in 1903.

Mr. WELD. That is not true; it has not been shown that we violated the injunction of 1903. Not a single bit of evidence has been produced that we have violated that injunction, although that statement has been made very many times that we have violated or that it proved ineffectual; that is not true.

Mr. MARSH. That is a question of judgment.

Mr. WELD. It is a question of fact.

Mr. MARSII. As to whether it has been proven or not is a question of opinion.

Mr. CHAPLIN. The thing was tried out in court and we were acquitted by a jury.

Mr. MARSH. Do you know of any great corporation in this country that has been recently convicted?

Mr. WELD. Oh, I think the courts dispense justice; I am not a disbeliever in the courts.

Mr. MARSH. Coming back to the question of the propriety of this legislation, is there any other big combination of business with which the Attorney General has entered into a compromise decree that you know of?

Mr. CHAPLIN. This is not a combination.

Mr. MARSH. Is there any other great aggregation of capital in related business, similar to the packers, with which the Department of Justice has made a compromise decree?

Mr. WELD. I do not think that there is, and I do not think that there has been any industry that has been so harrassed and so misrepresented that it was necessary to enter with the Department of Justice into such a decree to try and satisfy prejudice caused by such misrepresentation. It is an unusual thing.

Mr. MARSH. Yes; it is an unusual thing. It is an unusual thing, is it not, for the Department of Justice, when the Attorney General admits that there has been violation of both the criminal and civil law, in effect, by saying that the violations have been of the antitrust laws. It is not usual for the Attorney General to effect a compromise under such conditions?

Mr. WELD. I have expressed my opinion on that-if we are guilty of violation of the law I think we should have been prosecuted and punished. Of course, we know ourselves that there has been no violation of the law.

Mr. MARSH. How would you construe the Attorney General's statement before the Senate Committee on Agriculture that one reason that led him to this action was the practical difliculties in the way of getting a conviction?

Mr. CHAPLIN. I think it is lack of evidence.

Mr. MARSH. I am going to put that question, with the committee's permission, when the Attorney General is here. Do you think our antitrust laws have been effective in preventing a combination?

Mr. WELD. I know they have in our industry been very effective. I think on the whole they have been effective. I do not know as they have been effective in every case, but they have been generally effective in prohibiting combinations in restraint of trade.

Mr. MARSH. Have they been effective in preventing unfair practices?

Mr. WELD. They are not aimed to prevent unfair practices. The Federal Commission law is made to prevent those, and I think it has

been effective in a large degree in preventing unfair practices. I think the Federal Trade Commission has done a great deal of good. in that direction.

Mr. MARSH. I want to read two or three letters here, but with the permission of the chairman, I will ask to have a brief statement as tolocal price discrimination of the packers inserted. It is only two or three pages.

Mr. WELD. What is that from?

Mr. MARSH. It is from Part IV of the Federal Trade Commission's report on the meat-packing industry, on the specific points of whether the packers have paid one price in one place and much higher prices in another, showing unfair practices.

Mr. WELD. It does not show unfair practices, and you can not show unfair practices. We do meet competition in different localities and meet the prices prevailing in those localities.

(The matter referred to by Mr. Marsh, Part IV, Federal Trade Commission's Report, and submitted by him, was printed in full in part 25 of these hearings.

Mr. MARSH. Now, Mr. Weld, do you think we can reach the situation of the big five packers where you have been able to maintain a continuity in the percentage of your purchases by any antitrust laws, or anything of that sort?

Mr. WELD. If I understand the question, I do not think there is any kind of antitrust law that will affect the approximately constant percentages, because these percentages do not result from combinations and agreements in restraint of trade, or any kind of agreement.

Mr. MARSH. That is just the point I am trying to get to. If in our industrial organization we have reached the situation where incidentally or continuously the result is reached which, if collusively done, would be a violation of the antitrust laws, is not that evidence that we need some other kind of treatment?

Mr. WELD. No, sir; I do not think it does at all. It is the result of competition-perfectly healthy competition, and that is good for everybody..

Mr. MARSH. Then you think that the antitrust law is legal?

Mr. WELD. What?

Mr. MARSH. Then you think that the antitrust law is legal?

Mr. WELD. I think the antitrust law is constitutional, if that is what you mean.

Mr. MARSH. Very well. What is it trying to accomplish?

Mr. WELD. What is it trying to accomplish?

Mr. MARSH. Yes.

Mr. WELD. It is trying to prevent a combination in restraint of trade.

Mr. MARSH. Is the continuity of percentages by the Big Five packers in purchases contrary to public policy?

Mr. WELD. It is not, and it is not a combination in restraint of trade.

Mr. MARSH. The men who drafted the antitrust law would have regarded it, however, as a violation if done collusively?

Mr. WELD. If done collusively it might have been. That has never been passed on by the courts. The injunction in 1903, which was issued at about the time we discontinued our arrangements on ship