Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-07-20
Chats With Virginia Editors

The Northampton Times with double
edge blade cutting two ways at once has this
TO say: Quoting erroneous news item from
a recent issue of the Mathews Jour relative
10 Il mass-meetnE OF Northampton farmers
here few weeks ago, The Richmond Times
Dispatch rather pertinently il cynically. sug-
Eests that it remains to he seen II potatoes or
anything else can be made more costly the
ultimate consumer by resolution. Had the Rich
mond paper read the account and resolutions ap-
pearing In the Northampton Times instead of
distant and misinformed contemporary, its
sarcasm Nigh, have been reserved for some more
meretrc!ons cause. No indignation was cx-
pressed IN that meeting. either by resolution or
public address. on the contrary its purpose as
plainly expressed. was. If possible, O devise 4
means 70 an end, namely, TO reconcile certain
differences said to have resulted in an unsec,nlv
pricc-cuttinE campaign. and acting with dis
astrous effect, not upon the individuals at log
gerheads but the trustful farmer instead, who
permitted either of them 20 handle his products
Your average Northampton farmer, who by the
way, is about far from being fool as any
associated with either of the two papers
mentioned knows we'll enough the appropriate
Office of a resolution: that 1t Is neither a jack
screw nor dove OF peace. bur orderly and con-
ventional form of expressing the popular will
when II is popularity believed that such will has
been either misunderstood. Intentionally dsre-
garHcd or positively violated. These men be-
lieved and believe still that when there is daily
demand 70: commodity, of which there is no
apparent over production, and none Sidetracked
n should
could be so controlled as TO yield the producer
fair upon his investment and labor: il
is so with whatever he has to buy-lncluding
this very product when purchased for seed
why. they naturally inquire does the rule work
one way only? There is also popular belief
that price cutting, personal iealousies, or what
ever the agency responsible for the awful ex-
perences of this year, both highly unbe-
coming and ru!n"usy inmical to farming in
terests, present and prospective. and the meet
ing was at least the opening gun Of Il move
ncnt. whereof hard heads. whcresoever dis
pcrscd, had better take notice in time What
ever those responsible or Indifferent NAV think
they are face face nevertheless with choice
between resolution and revolution"
on the subject III. Mathews Journal
from which we obtained our informntion saws:
The Times-D oatch. commenting upon the
meeting of the astern Shore farmers designed
10 make an effort to secure better prices for
potatoes, concludes with this sentence: II re-
mains 10 be seen if potatoes or anything else
can hc made more costly 10 the ultimate con-
sumner by resolution Were it familiar with
the present market conditions our contemporary
would realize that the farmer should receive
better prices for his potato crop without in
| creasing the cost TO tho consumer. AT tho same
time that the grower lis receiving from 80 cents
TO sl6o per barrel for potatoes the consumer
in the Richmond market il paying approximate-
ly 81 per barrel in small quantities possihlv less
in barrel lots but few If any housckeepers buy
them that way Into whose pocket goes tho
enormous difference? The commission man l..
supposed to give his returns for the potatoes
sold, thus leaving only the retailer between
the producer and the consumer We are told
that the Cutting of the market causes the low
price Of potatoes. but If this he true why is NOT
the price to the consumer lcssencd? Does the
retailer get the difference? There is something
! radically wrong with the system of markc,inc
| which makes the cost five time,
| the amount realized by the producer for his
! crop All right, brethren: we arc glad IN bo
| able 20 place your views on this important sub
/ jcct before many thousand readers