Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1922-02-10
COOPERATIVE MARKETING

INV
The producers solicitude for plac-
ing his products before the consumer
as directly and inexpcnsively as pos
sible may be compared to that Of
the shipowner wishing to keep his
ship free from barnacles. Whether
1t be coal or corn, it's a long, long
way to Tipperary, from mine or field
No one seems to know exactly the
number of hands through which the
commodity passes nor the exact per-
centage of the profit earned by the
go-between but all are convincedthe
isn't earning what he takes. In other
words a part of them at least are
really barnacles on the good ship
Commerce.
Producers of certain commodities,
fruits are one. have formed market
ing associations and appear to have
been quite successful in eliminating
some of the middlemen, though
whether their product costs the con-
Gunner less may be questioned. No
one. however, questions but the pro-
Queer has profited therefrom. These
associations are apprehensive lest the
sherman antitrust law may be found
to apply TO them. They would have
all such apprehension dispelled by an
act of congress. The Senate has
been talking the matter over for quite
long time. The opinions expressed
there are varied and conflicting, but
the Senate has passed the measure in
the form which the agricultural bloc
wished. disregarding the report of it's
own committee and accepting in sub
stance the measure passed by the
House.
The long debate over this measure
revealed quite general opinion that
the antitrust law is not doing what
was expected OF it. Senator Cum
Minis declared that il the Steel Cor
poration were forced to sell at a rea-
sonable profit all competition would
be destroyed as 1t can make its pro-
ducts more cheaply than can any Of
its competitors. and Senator Lenroot
remarked that since the dissolution
OF the oil trust the Standard Oil Com
pany really fixes the price of oil.
Neither alluded to the fact that with
out such law 1t would be possible
for a trust, regardless of it's ability
TO produce cheaply, to gobble up
those that might be capable of pro-
Gucing more cheaply.
The measure under discussion re-
lieves and Is designed to relieve the
aSriculturalst from the restrictions
classes OF producers. This is an un-
pleasant feature to those who dislike
on principle anything savoring of
class legislation. 1t must be admit
ted, though, that this principle loses
some of its force as applied to the
millions who own eighty billions
worth 81 property scattered all over
this broad land. The difficulties they
must encounter to secure co-opera-
ton among themselves would seem
almost insurmountable. The trainers
OF the antitrust law foresaw no APP
plication OF 1t to the farmers, but the
latter, or quite n percentage of them
have waxcd powerful in the past
twenty years. Much of the produce
ton OF the land is conducted under
the direction of large capital nova
days. Because one Is a farmer doesn't
argue that he is any less susceptible
to the alluremcnts of monopoly than
Is the producer of steel, but there I'M
coubtcdly is a certain safety against
monopoly in his numbers. Although
the tnrmers produced in 1919 prod
ucts TO the value OF twenty-fiv bill
lions. the number engaged in or de-
pendent on agriculture is about half
the entire population. If they could
function like the Steel Corporation
they would be a legitimate cause for
apprehension. but as it is. and so far
as this particular relief from trust
restrictions goes, there Is little need
to worry As much, however, may
not he said respecting this growing
demand for class legislation. It is
bound TO be mischievous if persisted
in.