The Leavenworth echo. [volume] (Leavenworth, Wash.) 1904-current, 1910-04-01

IGCElNGu lOI DultCI ~ CCnlo pOuhA
and the consumer paid %. Accord
ing to the department Of agriculture,
the average price paid to farmers for
butter in January, 1910, was a fraction
less than % cents a pound. Yet, dur
ing the same period, the retail price of
butter ranged from so to SIS cents
pound.
Here is a situation that seems to be
exceedingly involved, but is not. The
proportion of cows to population is only
small fraction less than it was when
the farmer received IS cents a pound
for butter and the consumer paid %.
The shortage of cows would justify an
increase in the price Of butter of only
fraction Of a cent pound. Yet the
price paid to the farmer has doubled
and the price paid by the consumer
has almost trebled. Why should the
price paid to the farmer for milk re-
main practically stationary, while the
price of the butter made from the same
milk has gone skyward2 Here is the
explanation:
The farmer isn't alone in butter
making as he is in milk production.
Great corporations buy much Of his
milk and make the butter for him-to-
gether with the price to the consumer.
The price of butter is made every day
at Elgin, Illinois. For what butter the
farmer makes, he gets the price made
by the big butter companies for the
quality of butter that the farmer has to
sell. In other words, the farmer, in
this respect, is under the shelter Of a
high-price butter wall. The wall was
not made for his benefit, but he is
taking advantage of its existence.
Statistically, he is also fattening from
high-butter prices. Actually, he is not
fattening so much as he seems to be.
Every year shows a greater inroad upon
him by the butter companies, who
already control the business and make
prices.
Let US now saunter out to the hen
house. In 1891 the farmer was paid
IA cents a dozen for eggs, and the
consumer paid 20. The department
of agriculture says that the average
price to farmers for eggs in January,
1910, was 80 cents a dozen. Con-
sumers paid from so to SIS cents.
Shortage Of hens? Yes and No.
Funny thing about these chickens.
There are not in this country as many
hens per capita as there used to be-
but they lay more eggs per capita.
Better breeds. The department of
agriculture says so.
In 1890 there were Alb chickens
to each inhabitant. The chickens laid
almost IA dozens of eggs for each per-
son. In 1900 there were only 3.07
chickens per capita, but they laid more
than II dozens Of eggs for each in
habitant.
No count of eggs and chickens has
been made since the last census, but
the department OF agriculture expressed
the opinion, in the November, 1909,
issue of the "Crop Reporter" that the
per capita production of eggs had been
maintained, owing to Improvements
in breeding"
Assuming that the production of
eggs has been maintained, the situation
takes this form:
In 1891, when there were not quite
IA dozens of eggs apiece for US, we
paid 20 cents dozen for eggs. Now,
when there are more than II dozens
apiece for us, we pay from so to SIS
cents a dozen. The law OF supply and
demand, taking into account the in
creased production of eggs, ought to
make the retail price 10 cents. In
stead, the consumer pays 80 cents
dozen more than he did in 1891. OF
this increase, the farmer gets 10 cents.
Who gets the other IA cents? Can
Mr.. Hill tell? Can Mr.. Taft tell7 Or
is the increased price of eggs only
another evidence of the great wisdom
contained in the presidential remark
that I'VE are living in the automobile
age" If so, who is in the automo-
bile-and who is the automobile run
ming over?
II -