The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1922-01-25

protective policy on the part, Of the
local buyers, who fears that he may
"weigh out" more than he weighs in
A great grievance is that at pres
cnt the field farmer has little or not
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 ma1 keting service. The differ
ence between what the farmer re-
ceives and what the consumer pays
often exceeds all' possibility of justi-
| fication. To cite single illustration.
ed by the railways and the growers,
Georgia watermelon-raisers received
| on the average rs cents for melon,
| the railroads got 1917 cents for carry
ing it to Baltimore and the consumer
paid one dollar, leaving 1913 cents for
the service of marketing and it's risk,
40 against 20.2 cents for growing and
| transporting. The hard annals Of
farm-life are rcpletc with such COM
mentaries on ths crudeness of pres
ent practices.
Nature prescribes that the farmers
| goods" must be finished within two
or three months of the year, while
financial and storage limitations gen.
orally compel him to sell them at the
| same time. AS rule, other industries
are in continuous process of finish
ing goods for the markets; they dis
tribute as the yproduce, and they can
curtail production without too great
| injury to themselves or the commu-
! nifty; but if the farmer restricts his
output, it is with disastrous conse-
quenccs, both to himself and to the
community.
The average farmer is busy with
production for the major part of the
year, and 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 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 cntrust storage-in warehouses and
elevators-and the financial carrying
of their products to others.
Farm products are generally mar
keted at a time when there is con-
gestion of both transportation and
finance-whcn cars and money are
scarce. The outcome. in many in
stances, is that the farmers not only
sell under pressure, and therefore at
disadvantage, but are compelled to
take further reductions in net returns,
in order to meet the charges for the
service of storing, transporting, fin
ancing, and ultimate marketing
which charges they claim, are often
excessive, bear heavily on both con-
sumer and producer, and are under
the control of those performing the
services. 1t is true that they are re-
licved of the risks Of a changing mar
ket by selling at once; but they are
pute willing to take the unfavorable
chance, if the favorable one also is
theirs and they can retain for them
selves part of the service charges
that are uniform, in good years and
bad, with high prices and low.
While, in the main, the farmer must
sell, regardless Of market conditions,
at the time of the maturity of crops,
he cannot suspend production in toto.
He must go on producing if he is to 60
on living, and if the world is to exist.
duction little or alter it's form, and
that-because he is in the dark as to
the probable demand for his goods
may be only to jump from the frying
pan into the fire, taking the consumer
with him.
Even the dair yfarmers, whose out
put is not seasonal, complain that
they find themselves at disadvant-
age in the marketing of their produc-
tions, especially raw milk, because of
the high costs Of distribution, which
they must ultimately bear.
III
Now that the farmers are stirring,
thinking ,and uniting rs never before
to eradicate these inequalities, they
are subjected to stern economic lee
lures, and are met with the accusation
that they are demanding, and are the
recipients of, special privileges. Let
us see what privileges the government
has conferred on the farmers. Much
has been made of Section of the
Clayton Antitrust Act, which pur-
ported to permit them to combine
with immunity, under certain condi-
tions. Admitting that, nominally, this
exemption was in the natumc Of
special privIegc,-though I think it
was so in appearance rather than in
fact,-we find that the courts have
nullified it by judicial Interpretation.
Why should not the farmers be per-
mitted to accomplish by cooperative
already doing by cooperation in the
per for men to form, by fusion of
existing corporations or otherwise, a
corporation that controls the entire
production of a commodity, large
part it, why is it not proper for
group of farmers to unite for the
marketing Of their common products,
either in one or in several sn1Ijnr