The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1914-07-23
Association By Laws Discussed
July 20, 1914

/ hooVNialiOh bJ LdHo DtotuooNu
July 20. 1914.
Editor Glacier: At the last meeting
Of the Apple Growers Association sew
eral arguments were advanced for and
against Article vi, Section /, of the
proposed by laws, which provides for
the dual system Of voting, the men,
bership vote and the proportional or
income vote, the latter based on one
vote per 100 boxes of apples, pears and
strawberries and Of one vote per 200
boxes of peaches and'cherries shipped
/ by the members during the previous
/ year. By this means, it was urged,
| the control Of the association remained
with thUse who had the larger inter-
ests. 1t must be repeated, however,
| that nasmuch as the association is ssbe-
| ing organized on a mutual cooperative
! basis, as the stock is held in common,
there are, justly considered, no larger
interests. The large shipper has no
more invested, although he may have a
larger crop at stake. than the small
shipper. The crop Of the former repre-
sents his livelihood; so does that of
the latter. Both are equally benefited
by selling comparatively. Let any who
have not the business sense to see this,
ship independently as long as they can
do so prOfitably, for good business. not
philanthropy. is needed in the valley at
present. The association has neither
majority nor minority stockholders. IL
has only members, and should vote ac
cordingly.
Allowing the members to vote as
such without regard to income, it
seems, places the large shipper at the
mercy of the small. But by the in
come vote, some of the members will
bring in 100 to 200 or more votes while
others, the 10 acre ranchers, can never
muster more than five to ten votes.
Are the small shippers so unintelligent
a class as to be put at such heavy odds
in voting power? Is business sagacity
proportional to acres of orchard? Sup
posing the votes were according to dol
lar units of profit per average acre,
would the advantage then be.with the
large shipper And if the judgment of
the small shipper is to be distrusted,
how can men serve as directors who
nevertheless have not shipped enough
to entitle them to one income vote?
At the last meeting the opinion was
expressed by one of the members that
not until the growers themselves man
aged their own business, would the
valley prosper to the utmost. This is
true, doubtless, but when it was plo-
posed to abolish the income vote re-
joinder was made, that such could not
be, as the above member would not
agree to it. which sounds more like
benevolent despotism than a coopera-
tive association. No better example
of the need for more democratic man
agement could be cited.
In conclusion, the impression was
sought to be conveyed that the income
vote was necessary and universal
thing. Let me quote one who has wider
acquaintance with fruit organization,
both local and national, than any other
one man, G. Harold Powell, general
manager of the California Fruit Grow
ers Exchange, former assistant chief
of the bureau of plant industry and
former p0mologist in charge of fruit
transportation ana storage investiga-
tion, United States Department of Ag-
riculture, in his book, Cooperation in
Agriculture, page q:
THE Voting Power of Members
As a general principle. the most desr
able form of organization is the indus !
trial democracy in which each member
has an equal voice in the management
and shares proportionally in the bene-
fits and risks with every other men, |
ber. This type of organization, like |
the different divisions of American |
government, is founded on.equalty in |
the rights and responsibilities of mem !
bership. The basis of organization is |
the individual member, a number of |
whom have joined together to accom-
plish mutually common purpose.
This is very different from the princi- |
pie of the stock corporation formed for |
pecunlary profit. In the latter, the re-
sponslbllty and voting power and |
proft of the member are proportional |
to the amount of capital invested by |
each. In the stock corporation capital |
is the basis of the organization and of |
its control. In the cooperative associ- |
alton, the controlling factor is men
in the other, money. This is the |
usual method in the foreign coopera-
tive societies, and as a general princi- |
l''s ~ SiNNiN houdlll bS dutplNN III
America, This limitation has been in
corporated in the laws of some of the |
states which provide for the formation
of cooperative associations, notably
Nebraska. Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Experience has shown also that
the voting power of the members may
be equal with reservation that it may
at any time be proportional to the
product or acreage contributed, with a
limit placed on the voting power of
larger producers, without weakening
the fundamental principles that distin-
guish cooperative nen-proft corpora
tion from an ordinary stock corporation
formed for pecuniary profit.
But if Sec. |, Art. vi goes into
effect no limit whatever will be placed
on the vote, and every vote at every
meeting. may be so taken. Imagine
the difficulty of handling that vote
when the association will be shipping
million boxes or so. A city election
will be minor affair to a vote to "lay
on the table, or even adjourn, in the
Hood River Apple Growers Associa.
tlOn Gpnrva w Cronvp