Photo: Vegetarian Meat Reefer - Cudahy 5177
Photo: Vegetarian Meat Reefer: Cudahy 5177
Well, sort of.
This is a photo of a Cudahy produce reefer, circa 1912 or earlier. At the time Cudahy, like most of the large meat packers, used their refrigerator cars to carry and distribute produce and other non-meat products in their refrigerator cars. This was before anti-trust regulations and the Supreme Court forced the large meat packers to divest themselves of many non-meat product lines and properties.
Cudahy had a number of reporting marks so I am not sure what marks would have appeared on this car.
Bob Chaparro
Moderator
Railway Bull Shippers Group
Photo: Vegetarian Meat Reefer: Cudahy 5177
Well, sort of.
This is a photo of a Cudahy produce reefer, circa 1912 or earlier. At the time Cudahy, like most of the large meat packers, used their refrigerator cars to carry and distribute produce and other non-meat products in their refrigerator cars.
Actually, it was the Federal Trade Commission, not the Supreme Court, that ordered Armour out of the non-meat reefer business, in 1919. By that time, no other meat companies still were operating non-meat reefers.This was before anti-trust regulations and the Supreme Court forced the large meat packers to divest themselves of many non-meat product lines and properties.
In Chapter 3 of the Hendrickson and Kaminski billboard reefer book, there are a number of meat-packer cars advertising lard, butter, cheese, eggs and, yes, even Old Dutch Cleanser (in 1929 and 1932 photos of Cudahy cars).
I have never tracked down the 1919 ICC ruling, but it doesn't seem that it was very cut-and-dried. Or am I missing something?
-
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA
This is not really my bailiwick, but don't you have to make a distinction between what the packer could carry in their meat reefers, versus what the billboard adverting was touting?
I have never tracked down the 1919 ICC ruling, but it doesn't seem that it was very cut-and-dried. Or am I missing something?
Roger Hinman commented,
"Not all Cudahy’s were the same company which adds to the confusion. The largest of them was the Cudahy Packing Co in South Omaha and later many locations. They also had the Cudahy tank line and produce line when listed. Cudahy Milw Rfg Line was run by Cudahy Brothers in Milwaukee, later Cudahy, WI. Their brothers ran the larger business in So Omaha.
And then there are various small efforts made by John Cudahy who was a part owner of the Milwaukee company but also had some of his own private ventures. My suspicion is the car shown in the Union Fibre book has CRL reporting marks. The Old Dutch Cleanser was a trademark of the Cudahy Packing Company."
Cudahy Refrigerator Line: C.R.L
Cudahy Produce Refrigerator Line: C.P.R.L
Cudahy Oil Tank Line: C.O.T.L.
Cudahy Stock Express: C.S.E.
John Cudahy Packing Company: J.C.P.Co.
Cudahy Milwaukee Refrigerator Line: C.M.R.L.
Levi
Verified through ORER and actual railroad car pictures.
This may have been answered, though I didn’t see this particular question answered: WHY did the FTC force the meat packers to divest their other businesses, such as produce? What was the rationale?
Schuyler
Most of the advertising was for the benefit of lessees, so for example a butter ad on the car likely meant that it was being used for that, or at least for a company that shipped butter among other things.
I have never tracked down the 1919 ICC ruling, but it doesn't seem that it was very cut-and-dried. Or am I missing something?
Not the ICC, it was the FTC. It ordered Armour out of the produce business, and they got out (selling most of the reefers to a new company called Fruit Growers Express).
This may have been answered, though I didn’t see this particular question answered: WHY did the FTC force the meat packers to divest their other businesses, such as produce? What was the rationale?