The Lehi sun. [volume] (Lehi, Utah) 1913-1949, 1922-03-02
| I

II
Let us, then, consider some of the
farmers grievances, and see how far
they are real. In doing 50, we should
remember that, while there have been,
and stlll are, instances Of purposeful
abuse the subject should not be ap'
preached with any general lmputatlon
to existing dlstrbutlve agencies of de
liberately intentional oppression, bur
rather with the conception that the
marketing of farm products has not
heen modernized
An ancient evil, and persistent
Jne, Is the undergrqdlng 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
chlcanery should persist on any I'm.
portant scale in these days of bust
ness integrity would seem almost in
credible, but there is much evidence
that II does so persist. Even MS
write, the newspapers announce the
suspension of several firms from the
New York Produce Exchange for ex.
porting to Germany as No. . wheat
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 field farmer has little or no
control over the time and conditions
Of marketing his products. with the
result that he Is often undergrad for
his products and usually overcharged
for marketing service. The differ.
ence between what the farmer re.
ceives and what the consumer paws
often exceeds all possibility OF justI.
hcatlon. TO cite single Illustration
Last year, according to figures attest.
ed by the railways and the growers.
Georgia watermelon-ralsers received
on the average rs cents for a melon.
the railroads got 1877 cents for carry.
ing It to Baltimore and the consumer
paid one dollar, leaving 70.S 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 con.
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 ais
tribute as they produce, and they con
curtall production without too preot
injury TO themselves or the comm
nifty; but II the farmer restricts his
output, It is with disastrous conse.
quences, both to himself and 10 the
community.
The average farmer Is busy with
production for the major part NJ tho
year. and has nothing to sell. The
bulk Of his output comes on the mar
ket a. once Because OF lack Of stor.
age facilities and of financial simmer,
the farmer cannot carry his goods
through the year and dispose of tbem
as they are currently needed. In tbe
great majority Of cases, farmers have
to entrust storage-in warehouses ana
eleyators-and the financial carrvinS
OF their products to others.
Farm products are generouv mn.
seted at time when there Is con-
sestion Of both transportation AMI
hnance-when cars ana money arn
scar e. The outcome, in mary a.
staices, Is that the farmers NOT oni,,
sen under pressure, and therefore ai
a disadvantage, but are compelled ~
take further reductions in net returns
IN order to meet the charges for ne
service Of storing, Transporting. anonc
ING, ana ultimate marketlng-u,hIo,
charges they claim, are often exces
slye' bear heavily on both consume
ana producer ana are under the con
lroi OF those performing the services
II Is true that they are relieved nj
me risks OF changing market h,
selling at once but they are quite viii