798 Secretary of Agriculture v. Isaac Meddin, Alexander Meddin, H. J. Meddin, and Asa Meddin, partners, trading and d/b/a Meddin Bros. Complaint. That respondents failed and refused to pay the full price for cattle which they purchased. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondents to cease and desist from: (1) making any misrepresentation to a seller relative to the quantity, quality, or condition of any livestock purchased by them for the purpose of coercing the seller to accept less than the contract price for such livestock; and (2) failing and refusing, without just cause, to pay the contract price for livestock purchased by them (September 27, 1937). 909 Secretary of Agriculture v. Armour & Company, The Cudahy Packing Company, Swift & Company, Wilson & Company, Western Produce Company, Amarillo Poultry & Egg Company, and Ft. Worth Poultry & Egg Company Complaint. That respondents engaged in a course of business for the purpose or with the effect of (1) manipulating or controlling prices at which poultry, poultry products, dairy products, and eggs would be purchased in commerce, (2) creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, and dealing in poultry, poultry products, dairy products, and eggs, (3) fixing and maintaining prices which they would pay for poultry, poultry products, dairy products, and eggs, and (4) driving competitors out of business; and that respondents conspired, combined, agreed, and arranged with each other and with other persons not subject to the provisions of the act to (1) apportion territory, (2) apportion purchases of poultry, poultry products, dairy products, and eggs, and (3) manipulate and control prices. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing dismissing the complaint upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish the respondents' operations were contrary to and in violation of the act (December 4, 1940). 928 Secretary of Agriculture v. Lee Schloss, Inc. Complaint. That respondent failed to pay the full purchase price for livestock purchased for respondent by its agent. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondent to cease and desist from placing orders and buying livestock in interstate commerce for subsequent slaughter and thereafter failing and refusing to accept and fulfill the legal obligations assumed as principal (June 8, 1938). 948 Secretary of Agriculture v. Brighton Dressed Beef and Veal Company Complaint. That respondent refused to pay the agreed price for cattle purchased for it by its agent. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondent to cease and desist from purchasing livestock in interstate commerce through buying agents and thereafter failing and refusing to recognize, accept, and be bound by the acts done and performed by its buying agents while acting within the scole of their employment (May 17, 1938). 982 Secretary of Agriculture v. Feldman Bros. Co. Complaint. That respondent failed to make full payment for livestock purchased by it. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondent to cease and desist from purchasing livestock from a shipper and thereafter making arbitrary deductions from the purchase price for its own benefit or for the benefit of third parties without first obtaining authority from the shipper (June 30, 1938). 1019 Secretary of Agriculture v. Lee Schloss, Inc. Complaint.—That respondent failed to pay the full purchase price for a load of lambs. Disposition.-Oral hearing was waived and an order entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from purchasing livestock through agents at and for an agreed price and thereafter failing and refusing to pay the seller the agreed price (February 3, 1938). 1020 Secretary of Agriculture v. Frederick County Products Co., Inc. Complaint. That respendent refused to accept livestock shipped to him on order. Disposition.—Order entered after hearing dismissing the complaint upon a finding that the cattle shipped to respondent did not conform to the requirements of respondent's contract with shipper (July 11, 1938). 1021 Secretary of Agriculture v. Frederick County Products, Inc. Complaint.-Same as Docket No. 1020. 1022 Secretary of Agriculture v. B. Perlin Complaint. That respondent failed to pay the full purchase price for livestock shipped to him on order; and that, as a pretext for refusal to pay the full purchase price, respondent falsely represented to the seller that the livestock did not comply with the requirements of the order. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondent to cease and desist from: (1) making any misrepresentation to a seller relative to the quantity, quality, and condition of livestock purchased by respondent for the purpose of coercing a seller to accept less than the contract price for livestock; and (2) refusing to pay the contract price for livestock purchased by him (July 2, 1938). 1081 Secretary of Agriculture v. Armour & Company Complaint. That respondent sold a consignment of live poultry for the account of a shipper at a price greater than the price shown on the account of sale rendered by respondent to shipper. Disposition. The complaint was dismissed without hearing upon representations that respondent had discontinued the handling of live poultry at its branch house in Chicago, did not intend to resume such operations, and had satisfied the claim of the consignor of the poultry (April 19, 1938). 1105 Secretary of Agriculture v. Leo Schloss, Inc. Complaint. That respondent refused to accept livestock which it had ordered. Disposition. Order entered after hearing requiring respondent to cease and desist from entering into any agreement for the purchase of livestock and then refusing to accept the livestock at the agreed price (July 2, 1938). 1175 Secretary of Agriculture v. Holmes Livestock Commission Company and Union Packing Company Complaint. That respondent made false reports to a railroad concerning weights of livestock and number of cripples. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondents to cease and desist from reporting false and incorrect weights of livestock and making false reports of crippled animals (May 25, 1940). 1223 Secretary of Agriculture v. Home Packing Company Complaint. That respondent had made and used a meat grading stamp with intent to make purchasers of meat believe that the meat had been officially graded. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondent to cease and desist from: (1) representing any beef carcass or other meat food product as having been graded by a representative of the Department of Agriculture when such carcass or other meat food product had not been so graded; and (2) delivering to a purchaser any beef carcass or other meat food product represented to have been officially graded, knowing that the purchaser thereof required that such carcass or meat food product be officially graded (October 18, 1939). 1787 In re Louis McRedmond, doing business as Columbia Packing Company Complaint.-Unauthorized use of official meat grade roller. Disposition.-Respondent admitted the allegations of fact, waived oral hearing, and consented to the issuance of a cease-and-desist order (June 24, 1947). 1801 In re Fred A. Ainbinder, et al. Complaint. That respondents failed to pay for purchases of livestock. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondents to cease and desist from practice of purchasing livestock and failing to pay therefor (April 20, 1948). 1818 In re W. L. Harris, doing business as Victorville Packing House Complaint.-Same as Docket No. 1801. Disposition.-Same as Docket No. 1801 (June 17, 1949). 1820 In re Louis A. Cross and Mrs. Anna Cross, doing business as Cross Meat Packing Company Complaint. That respondents failed to pay for purchases of livestock. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondents to cease and desist from practice of purchasing livestock and failing to pay therefor (June 17, 1949). 96278-57-4 1838 In re Quaker Packing Company, Inc. Complaint.-Same as Docket No. 1801. Disposition.-Same as Docket No. 1801 (December 13, 1949). 1910 In re Berry Packing Company Complaint. That respondent purchased livestock and issued checks in payment thereof which were returned by the bank because of insufficient funds. Disposition.-Order entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from issuing checks in payment of livestock purchased when it did not have sufficient funds on deposit to pay such checks (October 19, 1950). 1961 In re Western Beef Company, Inc. Complaint. That respondent failed to pay full purchase price for livestock purchased on order. Disposition.-Proceeding dismissed upon motion of complainant that evidence developed at the hearing did not warrant further action (July 10, 1951). 1982 In re Clover Packing Company, Inc. Complaint.-Same as Docket No. 1961. 1986 In re Russell Packing Company, Dower Packing Company, and Thomas W. Dower Complaint. That respondents employed as a buyer of livestock a person whose registration as a dealer was suspended for a period of 15 months for bribing weighmasters, and that the employment of such person as a buyer during the suspension of his registration as a dealer enabled him to continue activities at the stockyard substantially similar to those in connection with which the suspension order was entered and had the effect of nullifying the order. Disposition.-Complaint dismissed upon conclusion that, since buyer's suspension as dealer had expired and since it was unlikely that the situation involved would recur, the matter in controversy was moot (December 16, 1954). 2040 In re Flicker Packing Co., Inc. Complaint. That respondent failed to pay the full purchase price for livestock purchased from registered market agencies and issued worthless checks in partial payment for such livestock. Disposition.-Order entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from purchasing livestock in commerce and failing to pay full purchase price therefor, and from issuing checks in payment for livestock purchased in commerce when it did not have sufficient funds on deposit to pay such checks (February 18, 1953). 2058 In re Valleydale Packers, Inc., Salem, Virginia, and Valleydale Packers, Inc., of Bristol, Bristol, Virginia 2121 Complaint. That respondents, after purchases of calves at a stockyard at an agreed price per hundredweight, (1) demanded refunds from the stockyard company based upon carcass yields of the calves after slaughter, (2) demanded refunds based upon alleged excessive shrinkage of the calves, (3) collected such refunds from the stockyard company, and (4) misrepresented the yields derived by respondents from the calves. Disposition.-Order entered requiring respondents to cease and desist Complaint. That respondent purchased livestock from various persons and failed to make full payment therefor or otherwise failed to comply with the terms of the purchase agreements. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondent to cease and desist from the practice of purchasing livestock in commerce and failing to pay promptly therefor in accordance with contract terms and the practice of purchasing livestock in commerce and then refusing to accept such livestock (February 20, 1956). 2126 In re Swift & Company Complaint. That respondent, in carrying on its frozen dairy products business in commerce, has engaged in various practices and devices for the purpose or with the effect of (1) inducing established retailers to discontinue handling products of respondent's competitors and to handle respondent's products in lieu thereof, and (2) inducing new retailers to handle respondent's products exclusively; and that such practices and devices contribute to monopolization of the frozen dairy products industry in the hands of a few. Disposition.-Pending. 2179 In re A. C. Berry and Dan O'Neill, partners, doing business as San Jose Meat Company Complaint. That respondents failed to pay the full purchase price for livestock purchased by them at a stockyard. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing dismissing the complaint upon the ground that, under the circumstances of the case it could not be concluded that the failure to pay was without justification (October 16, 1956). 2253 In re Straub & Smith Packing Company, Inc. Complaint. That respondent had arrangement with a registered dealer which enabled respondent to obtain hogs at a stockyard at less than their true and correct weights. Disposition.-Consent order entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from the practices alleged in the complaint (February 11, 1957). Mr. HARVEY. May I make one concluding statement? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. HARVEY. I would like to say that the United States Department of Agriculture's loss is Indiana's gain with regard to Dr. Butz. Mr. BUTZ. I appreciate those kind comments. It has been a real pleasure to work with this committee the 3 years I have been in Government. The CHAIRMAN. We hope you will find your new assignment a very pleasant and profitable one. Our next witness is Mr. Wesley Hardenbergh, president of the American Meat Institute. STATEMENT OF WESLEY HARDENBERGH, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE; ACCOMPANIED BY ALED P. DAVIES, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK, AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE Mr. HARDENBERGH. I am Wesley Hardenbergh, president of the American Meat Institute. I have with me Mr. Templeton Brown, chairman of our legal committee, and Mr. Aled P. Davies, director of our department of livestock. We appreciate this opportunity to express the views of our organization before your committee. Our institute is composed of about 435 meatpackers, sausage manufacturers, and meat processors and wholesalers throughout the country, including some from the areas from which members of this committee come. As has been indicated here today, there is an effort being made to transfer jurisdiction over the meatpacking industry from the Department of Agriculture to the Federal Trade Commission. In view of this agitation and in view of the fact that some of the witnesses who appear before this committee undoubtedly will oppose the Hill bill and urge that jurisdiction be transferred, it seems desirable to comment briefly on the proposal. Those who started the agitation for transferring jurisdiction over the meatpacking industry from the Department of Agriculture to the Federal Trade Commission base their proposal on several allegations. They are: 1. Small packers are being driven out of business right and left. 2. Ten large companies already have 70 percent of the meat business and are adding to their monopoly powers by absorbing small packers at a rapid rate. 3. All of this because the Department of Agriculture has not been preventing unfair trade practices and monopolistic acts. Consequently, say the proponents, the jurisdiction over the industry should be transferred to the Federal Trade Commission. Well, what are the facts? Are these allegations which proponents put forth as proof of the need for making the transfer true or are they false? Allegation No. 1 is false: As to the first allegation that small packers are being driven out of business rapidly, census figures show that the number of wholesale meatpacking establishments increased from 1,392 in 1937 to 2,367 in 1954, the latest year for which figures are available. This was a gain of 70 percent in numbers in 15 years. Since the number of plants operated by the larger companies has increased little, if any, over the period mentioned, the growth shown by the census figures is a full reflection of new companies being formed. These figures demonstrate significantly the growth and expansion among smaller companies throughout the industry and show clearly that the first allegation on which the case to transfer jurisdiction has been built, namely, that small packers are being driven out of business right and left, is false. These figures, together with other information which is included in my attachment to my testimony, demonstrate significant growth and expansion among small companies throughout the industry, and show clearly the first allegation on which the case to transfer jurisdiction has been built, namely, that small packers are being driven out of business right and left, is false. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the attachment to your statement will be placed in the record at the conclusion of your statement. Mr. HARDENBERGH. Allegation No. 2 is false. Now as to the second allegation on which the plea to change jurisdiction is based, the claim that 10 large companies already have 70 percent of the meat business and are adding to their monopoly powers by absorbing packers at a rapid rate, Secretary Butz quoted some figures from the United States Department of Agriculture showing that it just isn't so that the 10 large companies do 70 percent of the meat business. In 1955, the latest year for which figures have been published, these companies handled about 48 percent of the total commercial livestock slaughter for that year, which is a far cry from the 70 percent figure originally quoted. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the group which quoted the 70-percent figure had to recognize in its more recent statements that its original figure was wrong, but some people partial to FTC jurisdiction seem not to have heard about the correction. Comparable data for the 10 largest companies are available only as far back as 1950. As compared with that year, the percentage of the cattle and lamb business handled in 1955 by the 10 companies had declined significantly. The proportion of hogs and calves handled changed only slightly. Slaughter figures for the four largest companies have been published by the United States Department of Agriculture back to 1920. |