Newark leader. ([Newark, Ohio]) 1917-1946, 1917-11-24
An Inequality
IN THE WHEAT AND FLOUR
METHODS.
THE CONSUMERS DUE.

tells the experience of farmer and
wheat raiser, selling his crop.
He brought in the crop to a local
dealer and sold it in the bushel for
the sum of $653.07. While he was
with the buyer he asked the whole
sale price of wheat bran, per thousand
pounds and then asked the wholesale
price per thousand of the Shorts,
the richer by-product in grinding
wheat and in the process of making
wheat flour.
With these prices noted down, and
with the price of the wheat and the
number of bushels in the crop sold
he visited local miller. He gave
the miller the number of bushels of
the wheat sold, probably not telling
him that he had sold that amount of
wheat, but also giving him the quail
ity of the wheat, asked him how many
pounds of the bran and shorts and
wheat flour, of both commercial
grades, it would make. The miller
told him. He made a careful es-
innate and found that if he had de-
sired to buy back the manufactured
product of his wheat crop, at the
wholesale price, it would cost him
just $210703.
The figures show that in a forty
eight hours transaction the parties
who handled the wheat, -four and by
product made over two hundred per
cent on the transaction. The farmer
had the investment necessary to pro-
duce the crop, had done the work and
waited year for the returns from
his labor and investment. That only
put the flour up to the baker and the
by-product up to the retailer Of stock
foods and the manufacturer of break
fast foods. The story would be a
good deal more enlightening if the
increase in values of that farmers
crop of wheat could be traced past
the baker and retailer and to the
hand of the consumer.
But thus far it is easy to see that
every person who had to do with the
farmers crop of wheat, after the de-
livery was made to the elevator, was
well able to meet most any wage
demand. 1t may be that the farmer
received an ample return for his in
vestment and labor. There may be
a chance for debate on that propo-
sition, but let that pass
The grave question in it is the
fearful advance in price to the con-
sumner. Did he get what he paid for,
on the basis of the price paid to the
producer? Was the miller and the
wholesaler entitled to make two
hundred per cent profit in few hours
and at the expense of the consumer
of bread and pastry made from the
flour? Did the fellow who bought
the by-product as breakfast food"
or COW feed, get his dues?
The General Government is making
an effort to stamp out unusual prices
of food products and the holding of
the necessities of human life for
famine prices.
In addition to being a praiseworthy
effort it is, or will be in the near
future a prime necessity if our honor
and arms are to be upheld in ages
old Europe. 1t is easy to see that
inequalities do exist and that abuses
are plenty; it is entirely another thing
to bring about that equality which
shall do justice to the producer, the
consumer and the parties whom COM
merce has determined shall stand
between.
A man producing and selling "whole
milk" tells an experience he had some
years since He sold his milk to a
dealer who retailed and did not make
delivery. He sold from his place
of business, and delivered for tickets
sold to the consumer in advance. The
milk he sold carried more than the
state required in butter fat. He got
ID cents gross per gallon, giving one
cent per gallon transportation and
delivered for by-weekly payment
for it. The dealer sold the milk, for
cash in advance, at % cents per gal
Ion and with one hundred per cent