The daily sentinel., 1913-04-02
STRONG ATTACK.
ON CONTRACT
IS MADE
A, M. Wilson Of Clifton IndiCtS
Proposed Instrument in
Bitter Terms.
Clifton, Colo.

junction Fruit Growers Association
is asking the growers to sign has pro-
voked a storm of criticism and an
\ CRY protest in the upper half of the
valley. At the meeting of growers
/ Saturday night in the Garfield
school building it was voted to have
nothing to do with the contract. For
over two hours President Johnson
pleaded and eXhorted. explained and
explained, but Notwithstanding his
eloquent and passionate presentation
of this, his last pet measure, and
Notwithstanding his singular ability
! of convincing his hearers that the
moon is made of green cheese. he was
not able to stay the tide of bitter op-
position. The adverse motion was
carried without a dissenting vote.
7 The opposition among the growers
in and around Palisade seems to be
more pronounced. Eighteen have
gone so far as to sign a petition by
which they have pledged themselves
not only to sign this contract. but
also not to sign any contract what
soeyer with the association. This at
titude, however, is neither reason
able nor Just. The moral effect of
the petition is still farther weakened
by the fact that among the signers is
7
of the Grand Junction Fruit Grow
ers' Association-John j. Bridges.
The growers can not forget how com
pletely at swords points on all ques-
tons of policy Mr.. Johnson and Mr..
Bridges are, nor how anxious appar-
emily each of them is to score at the
expense of the other; but surely this
| is not a time for either of them to
play politics.
But it is unfortunate that such
bitter feelings should be aroused by
this contract: Unfortunate, because
the existence of such feelings tends
/ to obscure the real point at issue, i.
/ e., protection to the association on
/ the one hand and to the honest, loyal
grower on the other, and to prevent
that calm and dispassionate consid-
Grafton which the importance of the
subject demands; but If the following
points are well taken, ii would be far
more unfortunate II the growers
should, tamely and without protest.
sign this contract.
I What now are the chief objections
to this contract? | should specify
/ them as follows:
C) The contract is too iron-clad.
The grower, for example, is asked
to bind himself to deliver TO the AS
sociation "all the fruit grown during
the present calendar year upon the
following described tract of land 8. -
/ This article, If literally Interpreted,
would estop the grower from selling
to his neighbors or in the local mar
kets, Strawberries. which at times~in
I the past the association has not han
died at all, and cherries which many
growers in former seasons have dis
posed of in this way and at greater
profit than they would have realized
if they had turned them over to the
/ Association. But this article may be
( interpreted more broadly; but by
whom? BY President Johnson? Yes,
| in growers meetings when he is try
| ing to wheedle them into signing this
contract But even Johnson must
know that in case of trouble, whether
over this article or any other. the
definitive Interpretation to be given
to this instrument will be given not
/ by himself but by the courts. And
no man can foresee what that inter-
probation would be.
| 90 The contract is discriminate
ry II apparently treats all growers
alike, but as a matter of fact it does
not and never was intended to.
A close study of the instrument will
show that 1t discriminates against
the man of small means, however
honest and loyal he may be, in favor
Of the man OF large means. The lat
ter when he purchases his boxes and
other supplies, will, of course, pay
for them; and if he does, he Is at
liberty to ship his fruit with whatso-
ever Association he may choose TO
ship, provided, he turns the labels
Z -. Ntritl u Iaiaf
and doctors bills can, according to
the terms of this contract, hardly
call his life his own until Shylock has
exacted his pound of flesh. But to
discriminate, as does this contract,
against the men who are struggling
to pay for their orchards is very un-
wise and very short-sighted.
| go The contract is unreasonable,
I in that ii assumes that the Associa-
/ ton should be absolutely protected
against loss.
1t seems strange that one should
need to remind the members of the
board that the basis of business is
not certainty, but credit or conf
dence; and that in every business
there is an element of risk. ut is
universal law. Every other business
is subject to this law. Why seek to
conduct the business of the Associa-
ton on any other principle?
AS a matter of fact, where the
whole volume of business done by
the Association is taken into consid-
eration, only little has been lost
through dishonest growers. But Il
in putting their names to notes for
moneys with which to buy supplies
of all kinds d the directors run so great
risk, why the annual feverish anX-
iety either to get on the board or
if on the board to stay there? | can
understand how a blind man might.
without knowing it, walk into a
yawning ehasm; but it goes beyond
my understanding why any sane, sem
sible man should, with his eyes wid@
open, not only walk, but actually
run and jump, into a yawHing u
nancial abyss.
(4) This contract seeks to gain
by indirection what the growers
would never grant on direct appeal.
a.. A ~ Ill rF.I