The gazette-times. [volume] (Heppner, Or.) 1912-1925, 1919-09-11

fr.vOlousiy by Che young aud uot-so-
young, II was terse and pungent
A stated to r IT you put ice in hot
soup 1t will cool IT," B replied
"Unh!" and looked blank. A re-
peated IF you put ice in hot soup it
viii cool it," B still diln't get it.
Solid ivory" exclaimed A in dis
gust, aud gave it up. The fact that
ice would cool hot soup failed to
penetrate through the indurate mass
that constituted BIS alleged brain.
brain.
And Just now there seem to be a
good many millions Of city folk in
the R class, well-meaning and ap-
parently intelligent men and women
Of mature years, who proclaim that
il costs no more to raise food today
than il did in their far-off happy
childhood,
A great Eastern merchant lectur-
ed his Bible class a few Sundays ago
that il costs no more to grow fruit
and vegetables than it did when he
was boy.
Said this great merchant: when
7 was young, cantaloupes, for in
stance. sold for twenty-five cents a
basket Now they cost s1.75 per
basket. Why? Because it costs
more to produce them? Certainly
not, Because the price is inflated
artifcially"
We know good many vegetable
and fruit growers who will read this
statement and marvel. Some Of
them may get tearing mad and cuss
a bit. They would be astounded to
hear such stuff even from the lips Of
Rip Van Winkle, rousing himself
after twenty years of peaceful slum-
ber.
1t costs no more to grow fruit and
vegetables than it did fifty or sixty
years ago. Wow.
Fifty or sixty years ago good truck
land adjacent to the big cities of the
Eastern States sold for twenty-five
dollars an acre. Such land today
from $500 to $500 an acre. BY
what strange process of reasoning
does the great merchant estimate
that it costs no more to grow things
on s500-an-acre land than it did on
Observation-Disclosures land?
Manure costs ten times what 1t
did fifty or sixty years ago; costs
from two to three times what it cost
three years ago. The cost Of COM
mercial fertilizer has also scaled sky
high. Fertilizer costs for the truck
er run more than fifty dollars an
acre higher than grandad had to
pay. But, Mr.. Grower, you should
not charge for these tri1ing
extras. Hold the price down to
where grandad did and pocket your
loss. You will thereby win the eter-
nal gratitude OF the city consumer
who now suspects you are profiteer-
ing. And If your interest charge on
your farm investment is twenty-five
dollars an acre whereas in grandad's
case it was one dollar and fifty cents
IN acre., by all means do not charge
up the additional $3.50 to Mr.. City
Man. Be a philanthropist and hand
it over to him in a nice little bundle
tied with red ribbon. He will then
be able to pay fifteen dollars for a
pair of shoes as against two dollars
and fifty cents pair paid by his
grandad. The shoe manufacturer
needs the money, whereas the fruit
and vegetable grower does not. We
read OF shoe manufacturer whose
profits last year topped ten million
dollars. The "plutocratic" truck
grower skinned through with a
years profit of $1,000 to 5000,
wherefore it is easy to say that the
trucker is sinful wretch and should
be curbed in his profiteering.
II you must pay your hired men
from three to FIVE times as much as
grandad did such wee item should
not be figured in the cost Of produc-
ton. Take the hint from the great
metropolitan merchants and cut
back your prices to grandad's scale.
Possibly said merchants might sug-
gest that you charge off increased
cost Of labor to entertainment or
sweet diversions Of the country. "
OF course, they do not do that.
They add on the increased labor
charge and then some to each article
Of merchandise they sell. There
was a time when grandad could buy
handkerchief approaching the size
of bed sheet for dime. Now you
pay fifty cents for handkerchief
that is shrinking to the dimensions
Of a postage stamp.
Blame the high cost Of living on
the farmer becaus he cant talk
back, seems to be the order Of the