The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-01-28

April and May showing high months
fifteen times out of forty-four years.
True, values should be lower when
deliveries are greatest, everything else
equal. But should they be more than
% cents low? 1t would cost only
about one-third of that to carry the
actual grain. Does it now look as
though speculation, the cash grain
buyer n the Spectator had got
about 20 cents per bushel out Of a
part al least of our wheat crop for
forty four years? l find another thing.
The dips down in prices are like long,
sagging lines. Ample time being
given for every farmer to get full
benefit of low prices. The upturns, or
high spots, look like mountain peaks.
Here one day, and gon the next. And
it's the d producer that ever gets a
chance for delivery or sale, while
extreme high lasts. IT'S only the man
generally who can close his deal
instantly by a word, that gets the
benefit.
Isn't it about time for us to do
some thinking and find a way to cor
rect it? We can correct anything that
Is wrong If we are in earnest inc
act with intelligence. Take another
view of it. Grain has a certain in
trinsic value, which should be above
average cost OF production.
Grain is not a perishable product
and can be carried from year to year
with little intrinsic loss. We know OF
no such thing as a worlds famine in
wheat. The world has never had on
hand a years need. Therefore grain
prices should naturally be staple.
There are no such things as extreme
y big, or extremely small worlds
crops. They are surprisingly near the
same size. Take the worlds wheat
crop. In 1907 3,134, 600, 900 bushels. In
1908, 3.18S, 600, 900 bushels. In 1909
3,585, 100000 bushels. 1910 1874, 0O0,-
900. In 1911, 1882. GOO, 900 bushels, in
1914 probably about 300, 900, 900. The
world raised this year probably 49,
100000 bushels more wheat than last
year. Not more than a good handful
apiece, more for each bread eater. But
its value is or has been about rs cents
per bushel less than asst year. Or in
the aggregate, the tremendous sum
Of 1907, 500,0 if it continues through
the crop year. What this? The
talk of a tremendous crop and specu-
lation.
In 1911 the United States raised 621,
600 900 bushels and this year 3 ,O0O,-
900 bushels; or 109, 900, 900 bushels
more; and because of so-called over
production We sell it for about rs
cents per bushel less. Or we are
4 ASANCN ~ In Qua pUUOsOOU LUZ iOU,tDU,-
900 Of bushels when last year 621,-
100000 bushels brought 1852, 900, 900.
A difference to the American farmer
of $1l5,000,00 in favor of the smaller
crop. Will more bushels of wheat
help us? Take our barley crop. The
United States raised in 1907, of bar
ley, 154, 900, 900 bushels; worth on the
American farm Sc 2-3 ments. Total
value, $102, 900, 900. In 1908 We raised
166, 000, 900 bushels, value on the farm,
55.4 cents and brought $780, 600, 900. In
1903 we raised Z 0,000, 900 bushels,
worth So 1-5 cents and brought $94,-
100000. In 1910 we raised 173, 00O, 900
bushels, worth SIS cents, and brought
800, 000, 200. In 1911 we raised 160-
000,0 00 bushels, worth 86.9 cents, and
brought $139, 600, 1000. In 1912 we raised
22S,S24,000 bushels, worth now about
40 cents or the farm, and would bring
$4,000, 600. If the short r Of 1911,
being $1,000, 900 bushels less than 1910,
increased the value Of the small crop
over the larger crop $39, 000, 900, the
shortage being 13, 600, 900 bushels, and
00O2bushels larger than 1911 crop, re-
duces the value of the 1912 crop $751;
600, 900 less than the small crop of
19l1,-are o sure that we want big
crops? ,-
Or take u oat crop. In 1907 we
raised 754,o0O,00o bushels, worth on
the farm 44.S cents per bushel and
900 bushels worth 47.2 cents per
bushel and brought 1881, 100000 In
1909 we raised 1907, o00,O 900 bushels
worth AM cents per busheI and
brought $40S,000, 900. In 1910 we rails
ed 1,1S6, 600, 900 bushels, worth 34.4
cents. and brought $40S,0 900, 900. In
1911 we raised 992,O 100000 bushels
worth As cents per bushel and brought
$415, 000, 1000. In 1912 we raised 1,418,-
100000 bushels worth probably Is
cents n should bring 1884, 00O, 900.
Can anyon give a business reason
why the American farmer must take
less in money for $50, 600, 900 bushels
of wheat than 621,000,000 bushels
brought last year? Or why 1,41S, O00.-
900 bushels Of oats bring him less
money than 992.0 600, 900 bushels did, by
probably $4,000, 600? Surely 10S, 0O0,-
900 bushels of wheat and 426, 0O0, 900
bushels Of oats are not intrinsically
worth something less than nothing.
They make fiour and mill stuff and oat
meal and horse feed just the same,
and will be fit for use and just as
good next year. Does the Lord in
tend when he gives US q good crop
the entire benefit is to go to the con-
sumner and that our returns measured
in the things We need and must have
shall be less than If the crops were
smaller? I don't believe ii. There is
no legitimate reason for such CON
dition or conclusion. There Is, how
ever, an artificial reason that should
be an, illegitimate and unlawful rea-
son, viz: the growing practice of ag-
gressive and concerted short selling
of grain by spectators for future de-
livery. 1t has become an a
ment between ar army of short sellers
with nerve and money and the ad-
vantage of position. on their side,
against a mob of producers. Dis
counting the value Of farm products
and taking away from the American
farmer part or all. Of the reward that