The Dawson news. (Dawson, Ga.) 1889-current, 1921-01-04
A WIDE DIFFERENCE.

Opposition to the proposed relief to the
farmers is developing among members OF the
CONGRESS 1t is asserted that the manutactur-
ers of the east have been pinched harder than
the farmers, and that they have received no
relief. In order to be fair and eliminate the
idea of sectional prejudice an analysis OF the
difference between the manufacturers and the
farmers is essential. The people in the days
of inflated prices did not object to paying
what it cost to produce a commodity, whether
it was produced on the farm or in the factory
or in the mine. The consumer realized that
the manufacturer was forced to pay hlgh
wages. and that raw material was scarce and
extensive to procure He did not complain
of a price which covered both these clements,
n1,s generous profit He went so far as
TO acouiesce in the payment of price which
included the graft of labor in the form OF IN
competency and the determination to do the
least amount of work possible. He realized
that that was the only sort OF labor available,
and that its policy of doing the least possible
increased the cost of the commodity to the
manufactures. The consumer rendered JUS
tice by paying the price
But the manufacturer was not content with
these conditions. The output OF the factories
was low because so many industries had been
changed from peace productions to war pro-
ductions The people had money and demand
ed commodities The manufacturer seized up
on the hysteria of the public to prohteer. He
forced the public-wholesaler and distribu
tors-to bid against each other for the sup
plies he had The highest bidder took the
goods. In many instances profits reached SUI
per cent, and sales were recorded in which
Profits were double that amount The con-
sumner paid the prices in which these prohts
were included and which were passed from
manufacturer to wholesaler and from him to
iobber and from jobber to retailer. But when
he realized that the high price was not the
cost OF manufacture, made expensive by in
competent and inefficient and loahng help as
well as high wages, but of profteering by
bidding, he stopped buying. The manu-
facturers have taken out OF prices imitation,
the prohteering the excessive profits, but in
few, if any, instances have they been forced
to sell their commodities at less than cost OF
production.
The situation with the farmer is different.
He would be satisfied if he could get the cost
of production out of his commodities. He
does not clamor for profit. He was never
in the position OF the manufacturer, who
could compel purchasers to bid for his prod
ucts until the profits reached such proper
tons that they became robbery. If he had
done so he would be without case in court
at this time. If he had done he could
charge his losses from declining prices against
his excessive profits in the past and, until the
losses became greater than his profits the
public would have no ear for his complaints
about being ruined
1t is charged in some quarters that the
farmers did make large profits during the
war This charge is based on the superficial
fact that they prospered But their prosper
ity was the result of other causes than large
profits. They reduced the overhead expenses
Of farming by doing double the amount of
work any man should be expected to do, by
using the labor of the family in way that
in other times would have brought criticism
on their heads In many instances women took
the places of men in the fields. Boys did the
work of adults. In general Providence was
propitious and most of the crops were bene-
fciareS of favorable weather conditions. High
prices were realized but the money in which
the prices were paid was an inflated dollar
whose purchasing power was only half its
face value. Many farmers were in debt. The
50-cent dollars were worth 100 cents in the
payment of debts contracted before the in
hation Instead of spending their money in
riotous living the farmers, a general rule,
paid their debts. They could pay twice as
much with the same quantity of products
measured in dollars, even eliminating the
higher prices per commodity unit than they
could under the conditions which prevailed
when the debts were made. Now their critics
balance this business opportunity which they
did not make, but OF which they awaited them
selves, against their desire to avoid bankrupt
Icy. Their cases and those OF the manufac-
turers are entirely different. The farmers did
not profit from competitive bidding prices.
They enjoyed no excessive profits 1t does
not require an investigation to prove these
facts. They are self-evident. The charges of
excessive profits against manufacturers have
been proven by Investigations.
too MANN JOD LJOI DEDc