Difference between revisions of "California Cooperative Canneries"

From Packing Houses of Santa Clara County
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 37: Line 37:
 
The movement sparked an epic anti-trust battle between the US Government and Armour and Swift, leading to a consent decree against the meat-packers in 1920; Armour relinquished ties with the company soon after.  At least one other co-operative - the Fruit Growers of California - filed a complaint against Armour and California Co-operative Canneries soon after the FTC announced its own complaint<ref>[https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_tcxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O-QFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1490%2C2235250 Whole Thing is Mere Myth Says S. F. Attorney].  August 26, 1919 San Jose Evening News.</ref>.  Their lawyer, Aaron Sapiro, complained that the collusion damaged potential relationships between growers and other co-operative organizations<ref>[https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QNgxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O-QFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1095%2C6303432 Remove Sapiro, Co-operative Men Demand].  December 4, 1919 San Jose Evening News.  Adherents of both sides clashed at a meeting of the [[California Prune and Apricot Growers]] association.</ref>.  The packers backed down in early 1920 and signed a consent decree, then divested themselves of many businesses.  Their connection with California Co-operative Canneries continued only with a mortgage they held on the plant, but that was enough for competitors to still brand the cannery as "Armour-controlled."  Another writer claimed the company was "heavily in debt to Armour" even after the consent decree<ref>[http://www.archive.org/stream/investigationofc16unit/investigationofc16unit_djvu.txt Investigation of Concentration of Economic Power].  Monograph #16.  For Temporary National Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 1940.</ref>.
 
The movement sparked an epic anti-trust battle between the US Government and Armour and Swift, leading to a consent decree against the meat-packers in 1920; Armour relinquished ties with the company soon after.  At least one other co-operative - the Fruit Growers of California - filed a complaint against Armour and California Co-operative Canneries soon after the FTC announced its own complaint<ref>[https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_tcxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O-QFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1490%2C2235250 Whole Thing is Mere Myth Says S. F. Attorney].  August 26, 1919 San Jose Evening News.</ref>.  Their lawyer, Aaron Sapiro, complained that the collusion damaged potential relationships between growers and other co-operative organizations<ref>[https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QNgxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O-QFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1095%2C6303432 Remove Sapiro, Co-operative Men Demand].  December 4, 1919 San Jose Evening News.  Adherents of both sides clashed at a meeting of the [[California Prune and Apricot Growers]] association.</ref>.  The packers backed down in early 1920 and signed a consent decree, then divested themselves of many businesses.  Their connection with California Co-operative Canneries continued only with a mortgage they held on the plant, but that was enough for competitors to still brand the cannery as "Armour-controlled."  Another writer claimed the company was "heavily in debt to Armour" even after the consent decree<ref>[http://www.archive.org/stream/investigationofc16unit/investigationofc16unit_djvu.txt Investigation of Concentration of Economic Power].  Monograph #16.  For Temporary National Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 1940.</ref>.
  
−
California Co-operative Canneries disliked the consent decree and loss of their biggest customer, and tried to reverse it, both in hearings in the Senate in 1922, and via an appeal that agreed that they could intervene in the case<ref>[https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Hw1PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_k4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2797%2C5480951 Court Ruling May Reopen Big Five Litigation].  June 2, 1924 Prescott Evening Courier].  "Reversing the lower court's decision, the court of appeals upheld the right of the California Co-operative Canneries company to intervene in the case."</ref>.  The cannery argued they had a vital interest in the case because the consent decree lost them their contracted customer responsible for 52% of their entire output<ref>[https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=efhVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5uEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3380%2C1450858 Intervenes in Packer Case].  June 3, 1924 Spokane Spokesman-Review.</ref>.  When the case finally reached the Supreme Court in 1929, the Supreme Court refused to change the consent decree<ref>[https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8VIiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Q6QFAAAAIBAJ&pg=992%2C5037602 Canneries Lose Noted Packer Consent Case].  May 20, 1929 San Jose Evening News.</ref>.   
+
California Co-operative Canneries disliked the consent decree and loss of their biggest customer, and tried to reverse it, both in hearings in the Senate in 1922, and via an appeal that agreed that they could intervene in the case<ref>[https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Hw1PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_k4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2797%2C5480951 Court Ruling May Reopen Big Five Litigation].  June 2, 1924 Prescott Evening Courier].  "Reversing the lower court's decision, the court of appeals upheld the right of the California Co-operative Canneries company to intervene in the case."</ref>.  The cannery argued they had a vital interest in the case because the consent decree lost them their contracted customer responsible for 52% of their entire output<ref>[https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=efhVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5uEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3380%2C1450858 Intervenes in Packer Case].  June 3, 1924 Spokane Spokesman-Review.</ref>. In April 1925, the Supreme Court for the District of Columbia suspended the complete decree altogether, and the appeals court upheld the ruling<ref>"Appeal in Packers Consent Case Denied in Washington By District Court Decision".  In March 4, 1926 Modesto, News Herald.</ref>.  When the case finally reached the Supreme Court in 1929, the Supreme Court refused to change the consent decree<ref>[https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8VIiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Q6QFAAAAIBAJ&pg=992%2C5037602 Canneries Lose Noted Packer Consent Case].  May 20, 1929 San Jose Evening News.</ref>.   
  
 
The consent decree was suspended from 1925 to 1929; the Supreme Court ruled anti-trust action was appropriate<ref>Thomas C. Blaisdell, [http://books.google.com/books?id=N8dZkGO6i-AC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=%22California+Cooperative+Canneries%22+armour&source=bl&ots=9qAOHPid3v&sig=yJYT4K27iWHa-rnYpP0BwtudQPM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=72BcT9eLK-isiQLS_JTYDA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22California%20Cooperative%20Canneries%22%20armour&f=false An Experiment in the Control of Business].  2008, Lawbook Exchange Ltd. p. 202. Originally published by Columbia University Press in 1932.</ref>.   
 
The consent decree was suspended from 1925 to 1929; the Supreme Court ruled anti-trust action was appropriate<ref>Thomas C. Blaisdell, [http://books.google.com/books?id=N8dZkGO6i-AC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=%22California+Cooperative+Canneries%22+armour&source=bl&ots=9qAOHPid3v&sig=yJYT4K27iWHa-rnYpP0BwtudQPM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=72BcT9eLK-isiQLS_JTYDA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22California%20Cooperative%20Canneries%22%20armour&f=false An Experiment in the Control of Business].  2008, Lawbook Exchange Ltd. p. 202. Originally published by Columbia University Press in 1932.</ref>.   
 +
 +
By 1928, California Cooperative Canneries were operating ten plans "located from Riverside County to Sacramento County"<ref>"Solution of Peach Problem is Sought: Governor's Committee Meets With Canners and Co-operative Growers' Chief in S.F.".  In July 11, 1928 Modesto-News Herald.  Paper lists Campbell as "manager of two co-operative canning concerns, the California Co-operative Canneries and the California Co-operative Producers.</ref>.
  
 
Eventually, they were allowed to keep the business<ref>[http://newspaperarchive.com/bakersfield-californian/1929-05-20/page-2 May 20, 1929 Bakersfield Californian].</ref>. Even then, the canneries only survived a few more years, being sold to [[Tri-Valley Growers | Tri-Valley Packing]] in 1932.
 
Eventually, they were allowed to keep the business<ref>[http://newspaperarchive.com/bakersfield-californian/1929-05-20/page-2 May 20, 1929 Bakersfield Californian].</ref>. Even then, the canneries only survived a few more years, being sold to [[Tri-Valley Growers | Tri-Valley Packing]] in 1932.

Revision as of 21:54, 9 January 2016

Summary
Business

Cannery
Brands

X Ray, Suncarest, Dew Taste, Calamade, Cock o' the Walk.
Aliases

Santa Clara Valley Growers Association
Successors

Tri-Valley Packing
California Cooperative Canneries, San Jose, 1926.[1]

California Cooperative Canneries was a chain of canneries owned by different growers organizations founded in 1919. Although the cannery was declared as grower-owned (Santa Clara Valley Growers Association for San Jose, Stanislaus Growers Association for Modesto, etc), the company was vilified as a front for the Armour & Co. meat-packing company, as part of the meat packing company's attempt to expand once into fruits and vegetables. California Cooperative Canneries had a ten year contract to sell its full production to Armour[2]. Armour argued that the setup would give farmers more flexibility and profits, but others saw it as an attempt by the meat-packers to dominate another area of food production.

Advertisement from Feb. 11, 1920 Modesto Evening News requesting subscribers for the new Cooperative cannery at Visalia.

Armour's connection with California Co-operative Canneries spurred passion from both sides. Independent canners and some other co-operative associations spoke out strongly against Armour. Aaron Sapiro, lawyer for the Fruit Growers of California, filed a complaint against the company in 1919 claiming unfair competition, and demanding Armour be divorced from California Co-operative Canneries[3]. During the 1922 attempt to reverse the consent decree, Elmer Chase spoke strongly for independent canners against Armour's involvement. However, the company also appeared to get support from other co-operative associations, including local cherry growers and the California Prune and Apricot Growers. (Strangely, Fruit Growers of California was claimed to be the fresh-fruit auxiliary of the California Prune and Apricot Growers[4].

Locations

Location Plant # Years Address Details
Hemet North Harvard Ave., north of Devonshire[5]. Buildings apparently still exist.
Modesto Plant #5[6] 1920, 1922 14th and D Streets[7] Plant in operation by mid-July 1920[8] Built with Stanislaus Growers Association. Site appears to be the current <a href="http://www.stanislausfoodproducts.com">Stanislaus Food Products tomato cannery</a>.
San Francisco 1922 Cunard Building
San Jose Plant #1, Plant #2 1920, 1922 Tenth and Taylor Built with Santa Clara Valley Growers Association.
Tulare 1920 Plant inactive in 1921, fruit instead going to Visalia[9].
Visalia 1920 Built with the Visalia Growers' Association. Initially peach growers, but olive growers included in 1920 because of a "disastrous" market[10] Mr. Lambert was manager in 1921[11].

Armour and California Co-operative Canneries

Armour's contract with California Cooperative Canneries had effect between May 1919 and January 1929. It declared that the cannery would sell all canned fruit required by Armour, and sell at the current California Packing Corporation's prices unless such a price would be less than the cost of production. The cannery could sell any fruit beyond Armour's needs as of January 1, and could also sell any canned fruit that Armour did not use. Armour also held a mortgage on one of California Cooperative Cannery's buildings, initially $250,000 but reduced to $200,000 by 1922.

The movement sparked an epic anti-trust battle between the US Government and Armour and Swift, leading to a consent decree against the meat-packers in 1920; Armour relinquished ties with the company soon after. At least one other co-operative - the Fruit Growers of California - filed a complaint against Armour and California Co-operative Canneries soon after the FTC announced its own complaint[12]. Their lawyer, Aaron Sapiro, complained that the collusion damaged potential relationships between growers and other co-operative organizations[13]. The packers backed down in early 1920 and signed a consent decree, then divested themselves of many businesses. Their connection with California Co-operative Canneries continued only with a mortgage they held on the plant, but that was enough for competitors to still brand the cannery as "Armour-controlled." Another writer claimed the company was "heavily in debt to Armour" even after the consent decree[14].

California Co-operative Canneries disliked the consent decree and loss of their biggest customer, and tried to reverse it, both in hearings in the Senate in 1922, and via an appeal that agreed that they could intervene in the case[15]. The cannery argued they had a vital interest in the case because the consent decree lost them their contracted customer responsible for 52% of their entire output[16]. In April 1925, the Supreme Court for the District of Columbia suspended the complete decree altogether, and the appeals court upheld the ruling[17]. When the case finally reached the Supreme Court in 1929, the Supreme Court refused to change the consent decree[18].

The consent decree was suspended from 1925 to 1929; the Supreme Court ruled anti-trust action was appropriate[19].

By 1928, California Cooperative Canneries were operating ten plans "located from Riverside County to Sacramento County"[20].

Eventually, they were allowed to keep the business[21]. Even then, the canneries only survived a few more years, being sold to Tri-Valley Packing in 1932.

In 1920, the president was S. E. Johnson, with Albert Jaentze as secretary[22]. The company's manager was Vernon Campbell in 1921; he shows up in many press quotes during the early founding of the company. Floyd Bohnett, an enthusiastic member in 1922[23], also appeared in the press.

A 1922 Canners Directory shows sites in San Jose and Modesto, with offices in Cunard Building in San Francisco[24]. San Jose's plant was one of the biggest canneries in the county in 1922; a 1922 history noted "There are forty canning factories in the county. One of these, the Co-operative plant, is the largest in the world. In 1921 it absorbed 30,000 tons of fruit and employed nearly 1,000 people. In the busy season of that year the combined county payroll reached over two million dollars."


California Co-Operative Canneries in San Jose

There were rumors that the canneries were to be sold to Bisceglia Brothers, with the new company continuing to sell to Armour[25] Bisceglia Brothers will continue contracts with Armour; Vernon Campbell declared these as "without basis in fact"[26].


California Co-Operative Canneries in Modesto

Even with the anti-trust ruling, the company still expanded to Modesto by the summer of 1920, requesting subscriptions for the plant in March 1920[27].

References

  1. ↑ Pacific Service Magazine, October 1926.
  2. ↑ In Packers' Consent Decree: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Sixty-Seventh Congress, Second Session, Pursuant to Senate Resolution 211, to Investigate Matters Concerning the Consent Decree Entered in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in the Case of the United States of America, Plaintiff, V. Swift & Co. Et Al., Defendants. U. S. Senate, March 23 and April 21, 1922. Contract appears in the hearing transcript
  3. ↑ After California Products. August 23, 1919 Berkeley Daily Gazette.
  4. ↑ Eugene T. Sawyers, History of Santa Clara County. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, 1922. "The Fruit Growers of California Association, Inc., was organized in 1919 and is a sort of detached auxiliary of the California Prune and Apricot Growers, Inc. It handles green fruit only and sells to canners and ships to Eastern buyers. It does for the green fruit what the dried fruit operators do for dried fruit."
  5. ↑ Packing Houses of Southern California.
  6. ↑ Photo, Employees, California Co-operative Canneries Plant #5, Modesto. Robert Bowdidge collection.
  7. ↑ Break Ground on New Cannery Here April 1: March 15, 1920 Modesto Evening News. "Ground will be broken about April 1 on the Stanislaus Growers Assocation plant, a unit of the California Co-operative Canneries, at Fourteenth and D Streets, Modesto, the ten-acre site that has been chosen, according to Walter Baird of the Modesto Terminal company."
  8. ↑ Short Checks Cause Trouble in Co-Operative Cannery. August 5, 1920 Modesto Evening News. "John Elliot of San Jose was installed as superintendent at the plant yesterday, displacing F. W. Hoskins, who had charge since the cannery began operations nearly two weeks ago."
  9. ↑ Horticultural Jottings, July 30 1921 Pacific Rural Press. "The Tulare branch of California Cooperative Canneries will probably not operate this season, the peaches from that section going to the Visalia branch, according to Manager Lambert of the latter house."
  10. ↑ California Brief News Items: November 6, 1920 Mariposa Gazette. "As a means of avoiding disastrous effects of this year's olive market, the Visalia plant of the California Cooperative Canneries will be operated jointly by the peach and olive growers of the county. An investment of $40,000 for equipment to manufacture olive oil will be expended."
  11. ↑ Horticultural Jottings, July 30 1921 Pacific Rural Press. "The Tulare branch of California Cooperative Canneries will probably not operate this season, the peaches from that section going to the Visalia branch, according to Manager Lambert of the latter house."
  12. ↑ Whole Thing is Mere Myth Says S. F. Attorney. August 26, 1919 San Jose Evening News.
  13. ↑ Remove Sapiro, Co-operative Men Demand. December 4, 1919 San Jose Evening News. Adherents of both sides clashed at a meeting of the California Prune and Apricot Growers association.
  14. ↑ Investigation of Concentration of Economic Power. Monograph #16. For Temporary National Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 1940.
  15. ↑ Court Ruling May Reopen Big Five Litigation. June 2, 1924 Prescott Evening Courier]. "Reversing the lower court's decision, the court of appeals upheld the right of the California Co-operative Canneries company to intervene in the case."
  16. ↑ Intervenes in Packer Case. June 3, 1924 Spokane Spokesman-Review.
  17. ↑ "Appeal in Packers Consent Case Denied in Washington By District Court Decision". In March 4, 1926 Modesto, News Herald.
  18. ↑ Canneries Lose Noted Packer Consent Case. May 20, 1929 San Jose Evening News.
  19. ↑ Thomas C. Blaisdell, An Experiment in the Control of Business. 2008, Lawbook Exchange Ltd. p. 202. Originally published by Columbia University Press in 1932.
  20. ↑ "Solution of Peach Problem is Sought: Governor's Committee Meets With Canners and Co-operative Growers' Chief in S.F.". In July 11, 1928 Modesto-News Herald. Paper lists Campbell as "manager of two co-operative canning concerns, the California Co-operative Canneries and the California Co-operative Producers.
  21. ↑ May 20, 1929 Bakersfield Californian.
  22. ↑ California Co-Operative Canneries: California Food Products directory. 1920, A. Marks, San Francisco.
  23. ↑ Floyd Bohnett biography.
  24. ↑ 1922 Cannery's Directory
  25. ↑ January 7, 1920 Evening News
  26. ↑ Co-Operative Canners Plant 'Not For Sale'. November 6, 1919 San Jose Evening News.
  27. ↑ California Cooperative Canneries. March 13, 1920 Pacific Rural Press. $117,000 in subscriptions were reached for the Modesto plant, with 2,000 tons of fruit possible.
Retrieved from "http://vasonabranch.com/packing_houses/index.php?title=California_Cooperative_Canneries&oldid=5199"