Commenting on the above, the Berlin correspondent of the London Times,
usually well informed and impartial, but in this case evidently * * *
catching at superficial appearances, has the following, under date of
November 30, 1882:
The correspondent accepts, as in good faith, and apparently without personal
examination, statements to the prejudice of American pork as compared with
the German article, which are totally unfounded, as also that the trade
interests involved are very slight.
On the other hand a very strong memorial, in admirable temper, had been
presented to the Bundesrath at the time this correspondent sent his dispatch
by a committee appointed by a meeting of merchants at Hamburg interested in
the American pork trade. This memorial, a copy and translation of which I
inclose, shows by facts and irrefutable logic that the pretense that
American pork is peculiarly diseased is the result of misinformation, and
that the German trade interests in this article are very great.
The basis of this memorial is the report on this whole subject, made in May,
1881, to the State Department. I do not know how fully this report was
circulated in Germany, but its conclusive statements are
[Page 320]
used with great effect in this memorial, and
are proffered by the latter to the minds it is most necessary to
influence.
The memorial alleges that the principal danger from pork consumption is from
the use of native pork, which cannot be subjected to the inspection which
can be applied to the imported article, and points out as a fact that
notorious recent cases of infection have arisen from the use of German pork.
It has been conveniently assumed heretofore that pork in which trichinae
were found was American, the proof of its being American being that it
contained trichinӕ. The singular fact is stated that German pork is sold by
the producers at higher prices than the imported article, the producers then
buying the cheaper American article for their personal use.
The effect on the poorer classes by depriving them of a food necessary for
their physical and mental development is well pointed out, and the loss of
revenue is shown, amounting to 2,271,480 marks, which must be supplied by
taxation on other objects.
It is also shown that the loss to German shipping interests will be enormous,
and the loss so occasioned will, in great measure, accrue to England,
Holland, and Belgium.
I am more than ever satisfied that there is no real foundation * * * in fact
* * * for the assumption that sanitary reasons require this measure of
exclusion. Such documents as that I transmit are conclusive to any unbiased
judgment. The facts are too well supported, the arguments are too logical,
and the illustrations too persuasive to leave a doubt. There is the pressure
of the pork raisers in Germany back of the measure of the landed interest
that is taxed by the tariff on many articles of consumption, and demands a
monopoly in this market, an artificial scarcity, that their goods may be
enhanced in price.
Singularly just at this moment the German press discusses the message of the
President to reduce our import duties, by which it expects a large increase
of German exportation to America. That justice requires careful * * *
consideration of American claims has not apparently occurred to them, at
least not in connection with this sweeping exclusion of American pork
products.
[Inclosure in No.
85.—Translation.]
memorial of hamburg merchants to the
bundesrath.
Hamburg, November 21,
1882.
The undersigned, citizens and merchants of this city, respectfully beg
leave to make the following representations to the honorable Bundesrath
for its consideration:
It having come to our knowledge through reputable journals that it was
proposed to finally prohibit all importations of American pigs and pork
into the district of the German Customs Union for sanitary reasons, a
meeting of merchants engaged in that trade in this city was called on
the 14th instant, at which the undersigned were authorized to call the
attention of the honorable Bun desrath to such objections which, in
their opinion, the proposed measure would encounter, not only from the
interests involved at the places engaged in the traffic, which
interests, however, we admit at the outset, will always have to give way
to those of a more national character, but also, in a far greater
degree, where national, economical, and fiscal interests are at
stake.
If the reasons which on a former occasion led to the imperial decree of
June 25, 1880, regarding the exclusion of chopped pork and sausages from
America from Germany, are now also to be made to apply for prohibitive
measures against other portions of pigs, such as are less easily
controlled, as, for instance, hams, shoulders, &c.,
[Page 321]
they cannot possibly be advanced to
justify the projected prohibition against salt pork and bacon, for the
reason that salt pork is only edible in a boiled state and trichinae are
never found in bacon. If, however, there should still be some
apprehension that trichinae might be contained in the small strips of
meat that occur in bacon, the danger of infection could be reduced to
the slightest minimum by the introduction of an obligatory inspection of
the meat, which could be controlled at the ports.
But a comparatively greater danger lies in the consumption of our home
productions, which cannot be so easily controlled, and in which every
part of the pig is employed in the preparation of food, and it is from
this source that most of the serious cases of infection of which we read
in the papers originate, as, for instance, the late case in Brunswick.
Although we cannot believe that in influential quarters any importance
is attached to the newspaper reports regarding hog-cholera, which are
actuated by interested motives, we cannot, nevertheless, refrain from
calling attention to the official report made in May of last year to the
American Secretary of State, Mr. Blaine, which sufficiently refutes the
slightest suspicion that diseased pigs could be employed in the
preparation of human food.
In this report, “Result of an investigation made under authority of the
Department of State of the United States,” it is remarked: “The fact can
readily be attested to that all rumors and reports that American pigs
that have died of disease, or even by accident, are ever sent into the
market, either in the form of meat or lard, are founded on malice and
ignorance; for it is quite impossible for the packer or lard renderer,
however much he might be inclined to do so, to use the carcass of a
diseased pig in the preparation of human food in any form that could
escape detection even by the most superficial inspection.”
The justness and warranty for the above remarks must be apparent to all
who, like the undersigned, are acquainted with the true state of things
from personal experience, in the great American stock-yards, and it is
this fact which, in our opinion, imposes upon us the duty of making the
following statement. By far the greater part of bacon that is shipped
from America comes from Chicago, which place, as is well known, has not
its equal on the face of the earth as regards the magnitude of its
pork-packing establishments. The shipment of pigs to that place
frequently exceeds 50,000 head per day, and there are often no less than
10,000 to 15,000 pigs packed, as is the technical term used for
slaughtering and preparing the pigs for the market, per day. It must be
quite apparent to anybody that so enormous an industry can only be
conducted by means of the most careful classification of the work, and
hence it follows that each separate branch of the work is done by such
fixed rules that any deviation therefrom, as, for instance, the
advancement of the interests of any single branch, would be highly
prejudicial to the interests of the whole. The swine are driven into the
stock-yards (cattle-yards of one square mile, English, in extent), and
thence selected and purchased by agents, excellently trained and
experienced in their calling, for the packers.
The company, a stock company with a large capital, to which the
stock-yards belong, has a contract with another company, “the Union
Rendering Company,” according to which the latter company has the right
and duty, and, as it derives large profits from it, the interest to claim for itself all diseased
animals.
From this arrangement, which has existed for years, it will be seen that
it is utterly impossible to bring a diseased pig into market, and
consequently it would be impossible for a packer, even if he desired to
do so, to purchase a diseased animal.
But the business of those packers, too, is so extensive, each one of
them, and especially all of them who work for the European trade are so
well known, and are such wealthy people, and have acquired so world-wide
a reputation for their wares in consequence of their scrupulous,
conscientious management of their business, that their own interests
would seem to compel them to exercise unceasing vigilance against any
other than the best quality of absolutely healthy pigs ever reaching the
market under their names.
All cases, barrels, and boxes, in which their wares are sent to all
parts, bear their firm’s name, and it is known throughout the business
world with what justifiable pride these firms strive to send nothing but
the best article into market. They are well aware of the injury that
would be done to their interests if they could be ever justly reproached
with shipping a bad or even inferior article. By these principles they
demonstrate anew the fact, that has been observed everywhere, that
whenever a large commercial or industrial enterprise was made to
flourish, it was done only by the application of honest principles, and
herein lies, in our opinion, the best guarantee for the protection of
the consumer.
The diseased animals are used exclusively in the preparation of grease,
which, as is well known, is used only for technical purposes. Any
attempt to mix it with pork productions designed for human food would
lead to ruinous results to those engaged. Such a manipulation would be
quite as foolish as an attempt on the part of a renowned brewery to mix
a quantity of spoiled beer with that of an excellent quality, in order
to increase the quantity. All the above details are not only well known
to
[Page 322]
American and European
business men, but any one having enough interest in the matter, and who
has occasion to express an opinion upon it, can easily inform himself as
to their authenticity.
If, in the face of such well-known facts, it has still been possible to
circulate the reports that, in our day even, diseased animals were
intentionally and systematically used in the preparation of human food
at the great American packing-houses, we believe, until we have received
proofs to the contrary, that they were circulated by mistake, and on the
strength of misleading statements. If we may now be allowed to regard
the question from a national, economical point of view, we are convinced
that a general prohibition would be greatly
prejudicial to the interests of a great number of consumers, more
especially to the poorer classes of our fatherland, without any
advantage accruing to the German agriculturist. Yes, it can even be
proven that such a prohibition would be injurious to the real interests
of the latter. Of meat salted, fresh and prepared, there was imported
into Germany, in—
|
Hundred-weight |
| 1878 |
632,235 |
| 1879 |
800,788 |
| 1880 |
477,314 |
| 1881 |
378,580 |
Although the customs tariff makes no distinction between the kinds of
meat, it is nevertheless well known to the initiated, and also apparent
from the returns from the places whence th se articles are principally
shipped (Bremen, Hamburg, Belgium, and from the United States direct),
that bacon is an important factor in the foregoing figures.
Of late years the importation has been sensibly diminished, owing to the
high prices which have been occasioned by the short crops in America.
When, however, prices were moderate, and the shipments more extensive,
it was possible to supply a large portion of our poorer classes, and
notably in the industrial district of Germany, with an article of animal
food in the form of cheap American bacon, so useful to this class, and
so necessary to their physical and intellectual development. The same
state of things will again result from an increase in American crops,
and nothing, in our opinion, could justify a measure which would deprive
the classes in question of this so important article of food—not even a
consideration for the interests of the German agriculturists—for what
the latter produce in pigs and pork preparations brings such high
prices, and during the period of cheap American pork brought such high
prices, that our poorer classes could never think of purchasing domestic
hams or bacon and lard to any extent worth mentioning.
On the contrary, is has frequently happened—and herein lies the proof of
the above-made statement—that the unrestricted importation of bacon has
redounded to the interests of the German agriculturist; that land-owners
and farmers have sold the swine raised on their lands for the high
prices which were paid in the markets (the price seldom fell much below
50 marks for 100 pounds, no matter whether American bacon cost 30 or 75
marks per 100 pounds), and bought for their own use the cheaper American
bacon.
If, therefore, the sanitary reasons advanced for the prohibition and
consumption of American bacon are not tenable, whereas on the other hand
the interests of the poorer classes would seem to demand imperatively an
unrestricted importation of this important article of food; and
experience has taught us, moreover, that such importation can in no way
be prejudicial to German agriculture—we may be pardoned for pointing out
the fact that through a prohibitive measure the income from this source,
which amounted to, in—
|
Marks. |
| 1878 |
948,359 |
| 1879 |
1,736,219 |
| 1880 |
2,863,884 |
| 1881 |
2,271,480 |
would cease, and the deficiency would probably have to
be made good by the imposition of heavier duties upon other
articles.
We would also, in conclusion, refer to the enormous loss accruing to the
German shipping interests (even the provisioning of the ships, as far as
this article of food is concerned, would have to be done in foreign
ports), as also to the extensive intermediate traffic in the article in
question with Scandinavia and Denmark by such prohibition. This traffic,
in eve the transit trade were not also prohibited by an especial
measure, would be unnecessarily lost to German shipping and German trade
and be diverted into Belgian, Hollandish, and English channels.
We therefore take the liberty at this early day to express the hope that,
in case a general-prohibition should be considered inevitable, the
honorable Bundesrath will be pleased to consider as feasible the request
to retain to the seaports the international
[Page 323]
traffic in the articles in question as soon as the
latter shall have adopted such measures that will prevent any of the
prohibited articles from reaching the German markets.
As any other motives for the contemplated prohibition than those alluded
to have not been made public, as far as we are aware, we are constrained
to confine ourselves to the foregoing statements and remarks, to which,
however, we respectfully beg leave to make such further additions as
occasion may offer.
We express the hope, however, that the honorable Bundesrath, in giving
all due consideration to the German interests involved in the question,
will come to the conclusion that the said interests do not require a
prohibition of the importation of American pork and bacon; and that
these two articles may be exempted from any prohibitive measure that may
be adopted.
With all due respect for the honorable Bundesrath,
- HEINRICH PFEIFFER,
- ED’M J. A. SIEMENS,
- GUSTAV J. J. WITT.
