Norwich bulletin., 1916-11-25

up by lesser men, with even slighter knowledge of real rural producing con- ditions. And now 1t is repeated by the president of the United States, who probably thinks that the farming ad- vice of a millionaire railroad mana ger reafnrmed by Q president must be the one thing practical producing farmers need.
 Does President Wilson really supp pose that the farmers of the United States could possibly raise such big crops with any profit to. themselves as to preclude the canny midd]eman from scalping them and also skinEing the consumer if he could find or invent a pretext? And does he really sup jective or objective. internal or ex- ternal, could occur in which the mid dleman wouldn't he able to find or invent that pretext? If so he allows less credit to artful dodgery than his- tory and experience warrant.
 Chairman Perkins of the New York City Food Supply Commission has, since the presidential address, writ ten to Governor Whitman asking him if, in the absence of any adequate fed eral control, the great state of New York cannot pioneer a way in this matter and afford to the people of that
 
 prompt and intelligent action" MT. Perkins asserts that the trouble is due to the lack of federal state and city market departments which shall study the question of food supply, food dis tribution and food consumption in an intelligent, business like manner, and effect such reforms in the methods of food distribution as would bring about beneficial results to both producer and consumer" He admits that increasing the output would oe desirable, and adds, very truthfully, "I know of no class of citizens who have tried harder to do this thar the >r< farmers them selves" But both farmers and pro- ducers know that failure to raise enough food isn't responsible for Ghe high cost of living.
 MT. Perkins points out that New York state has two big commissions to look after the public's interest in transportation and rot single ade- quate commission to protect it's inter ests in the matter of food supply, though statistics show that only about ten per cent of the average mans income goes fer transportation, while something nlle forty per cent of his income goes for food"
 Until we change all this x we will never be ahle, no matter what the size of the crcps nor how hard IIie 1ttflHerS WOlK. ID change SuDSL0n- tially the present extremely unsatis- factory situation and give to the peo- pie the quantity and quality of food they should have at proper prices"
 Even the New York Times, which worships President Wilson with daily adulation and which doesn't wholly approve of MT. Perkins, editorially re- marks that h1s savings in this case hot 11n didn't exaggerate a bit about the 'al- most intolerable hardships" imposed by present prices for food due to the inefficiency of existing methods. It declares that
 'As a matter of fact, food distribu- tion, as now conducted, can hardly be called a system at all; it is simply an uncontrolled, undirected growth = haphazard, empiric meeting of re- quirements as they have arisen from i'll understood needs and conditions, and the wonder Is, not that distribu- as little as it does, and that it comes even as near as it does to supplying the demands, Of the helpless urban multitudes. There are enormous loss es of money at each end of the line, for the farmer is IS much of a victim as the consumer, and all along the way there are enormous wastes. No-- where is there any definite responsi- bility, and such training as is pos sessed by a great majority of those engaged in the business of distribu- tion Is rather in the making of all pos- sible profit for themselves than in do- ing the work expeditiously and eco- nomfcally."
 Here we have two writers, one a critic of the administration and one