NO amount of criticism, investigation, misrepresentations or “exposures” has ever shaken Armour and Company’s faith in the fairness and final endorsement of the great body of American livestock producers.

That the consumer found grievance in recent high food prices and attributed his troubles to the packer or producer, or both, was perhaps not to be wondered at, though his reasoning was not sound. That competing food distributors should object to the extension of packer efficiency to general food distribution is easily understood from these competitors’ viewpoint.

The retirement of Armour and Company from all lines of production and distribution not directly associated with meats and livestock by-products, was in response to these disturbed elements of public opinion. But these restrictions of packer activities in no way affect the relations of mutual confidence and dependence between Armour and Company and the livestock producers.

The fundamental things remain, and they are these: The livestock industry must continue to exist and expand; producers must be rewarded with fair profits; livestock markets must be maintained and made more convenient; and the markets for meat products must be enlarged and extended.

To these basic facts Armour and Company have pinned their business faith, and upon them shaped their policy. Ninety per cent of the profits of the Company have been re-invested in the business and are represented today by great packing plants at sixteen market centers, and many branch houses throughout the country, together with refrigerator car lines connecting the livestock markets with the consuming centers of the nation.

It requires no argument to show the livestock producer that his interests and profits are inseparably associated with these properties, and it is quite as plain that the necessities and conveniences of the consuming public are dependent upon and served by them.

America and the world will continue to demand more and more meat and other products from livestock. Agriculture will not successfully continue without the production of meat animals. So the future reveals no reason why Armour and Company should not continue the policy of re-investing their earnings in the business that gives the most direct and substantial support to the basic industry of animal husbandry.