The New York herald., 1921-11-25
American Farmers Working for
the Labor Unions.


the Labor Unions.
1t did not take the railway man
ayers a month of Sundays to see why
grain and other freight rates had to
be cut If the roads wanted to haul
agricultural products from farm to
market.
More than three billions Of bushels
Of corn. for instance, could be worth
little to the farmers who had raised
it If on the one hand it were not
shipped and sold But on the other
hand there was nothing to move the
farmers to ship it and sell 1t when
the proceeds were too largely alb
sorbed by others.
Let concrete examples tell the story
Of the corn farmer and the granger
railroad. Several days ago corn was
selling in Chicago, the great grain
market, at about As cents a bushel.
A farmer wanting to ship his crop
from Wichita. Kansas, was faced
with freight rate from there to Chi
cago Of 411a cents hundredweight,
which Is very close to "a cents a
bushel. A nominal elevator handling
charge of cents a bushel raised the
bill to &c cents bushel. This left .he
corn farmer about 10 cents on his
bushel of corn deli, cred in Chicago.
For the railroad to collect "a cents
bushel as result Of the shipment
and the farmer to collect only 19
cents, out of which he must pay all
the costs of raising his crop and get
ting it to his shipping station, all
his interest, tax and other fixed
charges-well, the railroad could
know as we'll as the farmer that on
any such basis as that corn looked
more like local fuel proposition
than Chicago business deal.
But while the railroad was charg-
ing for that short haul 8 cents a
bushel more than the corn farmer
was receiving for his crop, the rail-
road really was collecting the "a
cents, as against the farmers 10
cents, not for its own stockholders,
not for it's own bondholders, not for
its own maintenance or other uses,
but very largely for its labor.
Classified railway expenditures for
1920 show that out of every dollar
taken in by the railroads within a
shade of 60 cents went directly to
railroad labor in contradistinction
to what went indirectly to labor en-
ployed on equipment and supplies
bought by the roads. To material
and supplies, the chief cost of which
was labor, went more than IL cents
out Of every dollar received by the
roads; to coal, the cost Of which to
the roads as they handle it is nearly
all labor, went IL cents out of every
dollar received, and to taxes Az
cents.
In recent months, since the slight
wage reduction, there have been
some changes in those ratios, though
nothing much to speak of. But on
the basis of the 1920 tables of op-
Grating costs what the railroad really
did when il took "a cents q bushel
for hauling the farmers corn to mar
ket was merely to collect it from the
farmer for others on the following
basis OF division: About Ia 1-3 cents
out Of the farmers bushel Of corn
! for direct railroad labor; about 61a
cents out Of the farmers bushel of
corn for the labor principally in
fuel, material and supplies; and about
cent out of the farmers bushel of
corn for the tax gatherer.
Thus the farmers bushel of corn,
selling for 45 cents il Chicago, went
from first to last as follows. Two
'ents to the elevator, cent to taxes,
2 cents to the railroad to cover all its
operating expenses except labor, ma
terial and supplies and to cover its
interest and its return on capital in
estments; 10 cents to the farmer to
cover all his work, all his investment,
I'll his expenses from the day the
corn was planted to the day he de.
Hvered it at the shipping station, and
2f cents TO railroad labor, direct and
indirect.
SO, when hauling three billions OF
bushels OF corn might mean matter
OF hundreds of millions OF dollars
Of operating revenues the railroads
know why the rates must ,be ad