The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1901-05-14
Living Issues.
PRODUCERS OF STAPLE FARM CROPS
SHOULD ORGANIZE AND SELL THEIR
PRODUCTS DIRECT TO CONSUMERS.

AEN@N- ~ "
in Leazer Society Oratorical Contest, A. &
n. College, West Raleigh, N. c., May 4th'
1901
Poets have kept the air ~quivering
with tales of unrequitedlove. Some
day a greater than Edwin Markham
will arise to frame the song of unre-
ouitedlabor-in burning words will
show how the farmer supplies US ali,
yet himself goes unrequited how,
with Clubhouse regularity, the tiller
of the soil grinds away only to find
himself no richer at the end of the
year than at it's beginning. To add
to his disconVent with his own empty
handedness, he sees other trades and
professions far ahead of him in easy
living and in wealth-getting.
Why is the farmer so far behind?
Not so much because he works per
haps less in~telligently, but because
he has the misfortune to sell raw,
manufactured products and on
these, profits are always small. These
articles, when they r manufac-
tured by skilled labor and expensive
machinery, make the wealth Of our
country, but the producers share in
this wealth is insignificant in com
parison with the manufacturers.
For instance, let US compare the
profits of the raiser and the manu-
facturer of our cotton crop. The
cotton crop of our State is usually
about 500, 900 bales. As an average
price of six cents a pound, the farm
ers get from the manufacturers
about SIS, 0OO, 900 for their crop, but
as the cotton costs them about four
cents TO raise, they make only about
two cents a pound. No act of theirs
can make the price more or less. On
the other hand what does the manu-
facturer get for this cotton for which
he pays S15, 600, 900? If he weaves it
into the cheapest duck, he sells it for
about 20 cents a pound. Is costs nim
about six cents to weave the cotton
into duck. This added to the six
cents paid for the cotton makes the
duck cost twelve cents a pound. As
it sells for 20 cents, the manufac-
turer clears eight cents a pound,
whereas the farmer cleared only Two
The comparison Is even more i'm
pressive if the manufacturer makes
his cotton into higher priced goods.
If he weaves his six cent cotton into
bingham, the manufacturer makes
a profit of about 20 cents a pound.
Since then the soil-tiller is thus
narrowly CircumstaGced, is there no
way for him to better his lot? He
can do this in two ways: First, by
raising cheaper second, by selling
higher. Our query tonight deals
only with the last of these ways.
Can the sorely tried farmer sell to
any better advantage? The afirma-
tive asserts that by selling directly
to the consumer, the farmer can ma
terially better his condition, and
that farmers can do this only by or
~ganization.
In support of this contention, l
shall maintain these propositions.
First, any class of men that are
unorgapized are at a disadvantage
when dealing with an organized
body.
Second, farmers can by organiza-
ton materially benefit themselves
without doing an injustice to the
consumer.
Third, the farmer who refuses to
join such organization falls short of
his duty.
The first proposition, that an or
ganized body has in all business an
enormous advantage over an unOr-
ganized one, is proved in the mere
statement. Then, since all other
classes are organized, the farmer, to
hold his own, must organize. In.
deed organization may be called the
fundamental postulate of modern
business. All the wonderful indus
trial developments of the time are
due to NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
of thought, influence and capital.
We draw deductions from COM
PARSONS. If other classes can better
themselves and attain the purp Uses
striven for by organization, concen-
tration of influence, why not the
farmer? To deny this proposition,
to say that the laws that apply to
all other classes do not also apply to