The record-union., 1893-05-15
WHY GRAPE-GROwING Is UNPRO-
FITABLE.

FITABLE.
The Examiner of May 18th says that the
estate of Samuel Lachman, the wine mer-
chant, has been appraised at 81, ,307, 1923.
Mr.. Lachman was a successful wine mer-
chant and dealt in California wines. He
left an estate which may reasonably be
valued at $2,000,000. The appraisement of
81, 100000 is necessarily conservative, as
are all such appraisements.
The Examiner proceeds to say that there
is no money in the wine business for the
growers, but there seems to be plenty for
the dealers. We have heretofore pointed
out the fact that the wine-merchant is
making all the money out of the grape
product, and the manner in which the
merchandising side of the account con-
trolls its productive side is illustrated by
an authentic statement, which we here
with present.
A gentleman having grapes to sell ap-
piled to wine merchant to know what
the price is going to be. He was informed
by that merchant that he himself was
member of a committee of the Wine
Dealers Association to fix the price of
grapes. He said that the matter had been
under consideration by himself and his
fellow-members; that while he was in
favor of allowing Sl2 per ton, the other
two members of the committee were in
favor of Ss. He further vouchsafed
the information that the theory upon
which he was willing to allow Sl2 per ton
was that he believed that valuation to be
necessary to keep the grape-growers
growing grapes to be manufactured into
wine; while his confreres on the commit
tee contended that the grapes would still
be grown at IS per ton.
Here was a committee of three wine
dealers representing the wine merchants
of the Pacific Coast considering the price
at which the grape-grower could keep
body and soul together and produce an
other crop. There was little or no con-
sideration given to the question of Justice
IN this matter. 1t was a question as to
whether another crop of grapes might be
produced out OF which wine might be
made, and on which profit might ensue
when the wine was sold to the wine mer-
chants.
Through the power of this wine-deal-
ers' trust price is fixed which, while it
perpetuates production, reduces the pro-
ducer to the condition of servitude. The
wine-dealers' trust own the vineyards,
because they own all the profit of vine
growing. Herein we find illustrated
many things, and among them is the OBJ
vious fact the merchants of San Fran
cisco are not merchants. A merchant is
one who makes production in the dis
trict he serves as a merchant profitable to
the producer. Unless he does this, he
illustrates in his own methods the differ
ence between the robber and the mer-
chant.
In the next instance, the San Francisco
press has been perfectly silent on this
subject, until the zephyr-like suggestion
in the Examiner of May 18th; not because
it was unintelligent as to the facts. but
because it has devoted its space to the
regulation of transportation to such an
extent that every other species of fraud
tlourishes like vegetation in the tropics.
Still one other consideration for our
contemporary: If it will enter energetic
ally upon a reform, aimed to produce an
equitable adjustment OF profit between
the wine-merchants' trust and the grape
grower, it will very soon find that it has
made market for the services of its con-
temporaries to the trust; and at last the
side with the most money will have the
most journalistic support and score an
ultimate triumph.
Our esteemed contemporary has opened
the question. 1t has actually declared
that the wine-dealers' trust is robbing
the yine-grower. If it has said anything
at all. it has said this, whether it intended
TO do so or not. Let US hope that in this
plain speaking we see the inauguration
of movement designed to affect a re-
form.