The Ontario Argus. (Ontario, Or.) 1???-1947, 1922-03-23

III
Let M. 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 stlll are. instances Of purposeful
nbuse. the subject should not be ap.
proachcd with any general lmputation
20 existing distrlbutive agencies Of de.
liberately intentional oppression, but
rather with the conception that the
marketing OF farm products has not
been modernized.
An ancient evil. and n persistent
one, Ia the undergradIng OF farm prod.
ucts, witlN the result that what the
farmers sell M Of one quality II re.
sold as Of higher, That this sort Of
chlcanery should persist on any i'm
portant scale In these days Of busl
ness integrity would seem almost In
credible, but there IL much evidence
that II does so persist. Even as 7
write. the newspapers announce the
suspension OF several firms from the
New York Produce Exchange for ex.
porting 10 Germany as No 2 wheat
whole shlpload Of grossly inferior wheat
mixed with oats, char and the like.
Another evil In that OF inaccurate
weighing OF farm products, which. II
Is charged. is sometimes n matter OF
dishonest Intention and sometimes OF
protective policy on the part OF the
local buyer. who fears that hs may
'weigh out" more than he weighs In"
A greater grievance ls that at pres
ent the field farmer has little or no
control over the time and conditions
of marketing his products, with the
result that he Is often underpald for
his products and usually oyercharged
for marketing service The differ
ence between what the farmer re-
celyes and what the consumer pays
often exceeds all possibility Of Justl.
fication. To cite a single Illustration.
Last year. according 20 figures attest,
ed by the railways ana the growers.
Georgia watermelop-ra received
on the average 7.5 cents for a melon,
the railroads got 1877 cents for carry
ing Il 10 Baltimore and the consumer
paid one dollar. leaving 70s cents for
the service OF marketing and It's risks,
as against 202 cents for growing and
transporting. The hard annals OF
farm-life are replete with such com.
mentaries on the crudeness OF pres.
ent practices.
Nature prescrlbes that the farmers
goods must be finished within two
or three months OF the year, while
financial and storage limitations gen,
orally compel him 20 sell them at the
same time As rule, other industries
are In a continuous process OF finish
ing goods for the markets; they dis
tribute as they proiuce, and they can
curtail production without too great
injury 10 themselves or tlfe commu-
nifty; but II the farmer restricts his
output, Il is with disastrous cOnse-
quences, both 10 himself and 70 the
community.
The average farmer is busy with
production for the major part OF the
year, and has nothing 10 sell. The
bulk OF his output comes on the mar
ket at once Because OF lack OF stor-
age facilities and OF financial support,
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 have
TO entrust st0rage-ln warehouses and
eleyators-and the financial carrying
OF their products TO others.
Farm products are generally mar
keted at a time when there is a con
gestlon Of both transportation and
nnance-when cars and money are
scarce. The outcome. In many In
stances, Is that the farmers not only
sell under pressure, and therefore at
a disadvantage, but are compelled to
take further reductions In net returns,
In order 10 meet the charges for the
service OF storing, transporting, fnanc-
ing, and ultimate marketlng-which
charges they claim, are often exces-
slve. bear heavily on both consumer
and producer. and are under the con.
troll Of those performing the services
II is true that they are relieved OF
the risks Of a changing market by
selling At once but they are quite will