Licking Valley courier., 1922-02-02
II

Let us, then, consider some of the
farmers grievances, and see how far
they are real. In doing so, we should
remember that, while there have been,
and still are, Instances Of purpOseful
abuse, the subject should not be ap-
preached with any general imputation
to existing dlstrlbutive agencies of de-
llberately intentional oppression, but
rather with the conception that the
marketing of farm products has moi
been mOdernized.
An ancient evil, and a persistent
one. is the -undergradlng Of farm prod
ucts, with the result that what the
farmers sell as Of one quality Is re-
sold as of higher. That this sort OF
chicanery should persist on any i'm
portant scale In these days of busi-
ness integrity would seem almost In.
credible. but there Is much evidence
that II does so persist. Even as I
write. the newspapers announce the
suspension of several firing from the
New York Produce Exchange for ex-
porting to Germany as No. wheat a
whole shlpload of grossly inferior wheat
mixed with oats, chaff and the like.
Another evil is that Of inaccurate
weighing of farm products, which, II
Is charged, is sometimes a matter of
dishonest intention and sometimes OF
protective policy on the part OF the
local buyer, who fears that he may
weigh out" more than he weighs In"
A greater grievance Is that at pres
ent the aeld farmer has little or no
control over the time and conditions
Of marketing his products. with the
result that he Is often underpaid for
his products and usually overcharged
for marketing Service. The differ
ence between what the farmer re
celves and what the consumer pays
often exceeds all possibility of JUST
acation. To cite single illustration
Last year, according to figures attest
ed by the railways and the growers,
Georgia watermelon-raisers received
on the average .7.b cents for n melon.
the railroads got 1877 cents for carry
ing It to Baltimore and the consumer
paid one dollar, leaving 79.S cents fol-
the service of marketing and Its risks,
as against 20.2 cents for growing and
transporting. The hard annals OF
farm-llfe are replete with such com
mentarles on the crudeness Of pres
ent practices.
Nature prescrlbes that the farmers
goods" must be finished within twt
or three months of the yenr, while
financial and storage limitations gen
erally compel him to sell them at tn,
same time. As rule. other Industries
are In continuous process of finish
Ing goods for the markets; they dis
tribute as they produce, and they can
curtail production without too great
Injury to themselves or the commu
nifty; but II the farmer restricts his
output, II Is with disastrous conse
quences, both to himself and to tn,
community.
The average farmer Is busy with
production for the major part OF the
year, ana has nothing to sell. The
bulk of his output comes on the mar
ket at once. Because of lack OF stor
age facilities and Of financial suppor,
the farmer cannot carry his goods
through the year and dispose of them
as they are currently needed. In the
great majority OF cases, farmers hay.
TO entrust storage-ln warehouses and
elevators-and the financial carrying
of their products to others.
Farm products are generally mar
keted at time when there Is con
gestlon OF both transportation and
anance-when cars and money ar,
scarce The outcome, In many In
stances, Is that the farmers not onl,
sell under pressure, and therefore nj
disadvantage, but are compelled L,
take further reductions In net returns
In order to meet the. charges for thu
service OF storing, transporting, ananc
j ing, and ultimate marketing -whlcl
charges they claim, are often exces
sIve, bear heavily on both consumer
and producer, and are under the con
troll Of those performing the services
y II Is true that they are relieved o
The risks OF a changing market b,
selling at once but they are quite win
-.-e-~ =