Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1922-04-25

gof future selling. A privilege amounts
to an option to buy or sell a future.
Trading in futures proper will con-
tinue, however. Tho act also provided
that cooperative marketing organiza-
tons must be admitted to the grain
exchanges. Action brought in the
courts by the grain interests in al ef-
fort TO defeat this law is pending now.
| Distrust of the grain exchange has
led to plans of the farmers to do their
own selling in the market places. The
United States Grain Growers, Incor-
porated, latest venture along this. line,
already has $4,000 members and a
crop of 9O,OOO,0Oo bushels pledged to a
farmer marketing, agency. In fact, the
growth Of the whole cooperative move
ment in the grain industry bears wit
ness to the dissatisfaction. Of the
farmers over the grain marketing ma
chinery.
The farmers elevator movement be-
gan soon after 1900 The appearance
of the cooperative elevator raised the
price of grain several cents bushel
in its locality. But the cooperative
Elevators encountered open warfare on
the part Of the grain dealers, particu-
larly In the Chicago territory Com
mission houses which handled grain
from the farmers elevators were boy
cotted by regular shippers, But the
farmers elevators, growing to more
than 5000 in number and handling a
greater proportion Of the crop, soon
became so powerful that this practice
had to be abandoned. But the grain
exchange still remains virtually clos
ed corporation as far as the coopera-
tive elevator is concerned. Another
stage in the battle is now at hand. The
cooperative movement is knocking at
the door of the grain exchange.
The cooperative organizations have
not been received with open arms at
the grain exchanges. Evidence pres
ented at hearing conducted by the
Minnesota legislature showed how the
Minnesota Farmers Exchange, a CO.
operative organization, came to grief
when it tried to sell on the Mime
apolis Chamber of Commerce. 1t
bought a membership for $4,000, but
the board of directors refused to ap-
prove of it's membership.
The company then had to sell
through commission house. One day,
when it had II cars of wheat belonging
to these farmers, this house failed, and
another commission house, a creditor
of the first got the 12 cars of wheat.
The farmers lost their grain valued at
$4,000. They appealed to the Cham
Der Of Commerce, but could not obtain
satisfaction and the company was
wrecked.
Then, there is the Equity Coopera-
tive Exchange. The Equity owns and
operates a big terminal elevator in st.
Paul, and line of country elevators in
Minnesota, North and South Dakota,
and in addition handles grain and i've
stock for members and patrons on
commission basis. 1t has pald-up
capital of 81, 100000, more than 21,OOo
stockholders and 100000 active patrons,
according to j. NJ. Anderson, its presl-
dent. The Equity Exchange does
yearly business of more than S3,OoO'-
600.
Yet the Equity Cooperative EX-
change, serving these thousands OF
farmers, can't sell bushel of wheat
on the Chamber of Commerce OF
! Minneapolis. In fact, with other in
tcrests, the Equity has established IN
! St. Paul rival grain exchange, in
| cidentally the only open exchange IN
| the country. However, the exchange
| and the cooperative company have en-
countered bitter opposition CIT the part
of the Minneapolis Chamber of Com
merCc.
The Equity appealed to the Federal
! Trade Commission, and the commits
sion issued complaint, charging the
/ Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce
with using unfair methods and at
tempting to destroy the Equity CO.
operative Exchange. The appeal OF
the Equity Cooperative Exchange was
made to the Federal Trade Commits
sion in April, 1917. The complaint OF
the commission, made after an eXten-
tcnsivc investigation, was issued three
and n half years later. Since that time
other delays have interposed, and hear
ing on the complaint is yet to be held
The nominal reason of the grain eX-
change for wishing to exclude COopera-
tive marketing organizations lies ir
the old rule against rebates. The eX-