New Ulm review., 1922-12-06


but are they not right in demanding
that they be placed on an equal foot
Ing with the buyers Of their products
and with other industries?
Let us, 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 still are, instances Of purposeful
abuse, the subject should not be ap-
preached with any general tmputation
to existing distributive 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 a persistent
one, Is the undergrading 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 inn
portant scale in these days Of busi-
ness integrity would seem almost In
credible, but there is much evidence
that 1t does so persist. Even as I
write, the newspapers announce the
suspension Of several firms from the
New York Produce Exchange for ex-
porting to Germany as No: 2 wheat a
whole shipload Of grossly inferior wheat
mixed with oats, chafr and the like.
Another evil is that of inaccurate
weighing Of farm products, which, it
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 thatfatspres-
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 underpaid for
his products and usually overcharged
for marketing service. The differ
ence between what the farmer re-
ceives and what the consumer pays
often exceeds all possibility Of justl.
fication. To cite a single illustration.
Last year, according to figures attest
ed by the railways and the growers,
Georgia watermelon-raisers received
on the average rs cents for q melon,
the railroads got 1927 cents for carry
ing it to Baltimore and the consumer
paid one dollar, leaving 1913 cents for
the service Of marketing and Its risks,
as against 20.2 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 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 they produce, and they can
curtail production without too great
injury to themselves or the commu.
nifty; but if the farmer restricts Ills
output, it is with disastrous conse-
quences, 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 entrust stora ge-ir warehouses and
elevators-and the financial carrying
Of their products TO others.
Farm products are generally mar
keted at time when there is con.
gestlOn Of both transportation and
finance-When cars and money are
scarce. The outcome, in many In.
stances, is that the farmers not only
sell under pressure, and therefore at
disadvantage, bnt are compelled to
take further reductions in net returns
in order to meet the charges for the
service Of storing, transporting, financ.
ing, and ultimate marketing which
charges they claim, are often exces
sive, bear heavily on both consumer
and producer, and are under the con
troll Of those performing the services
It Is true that they are relieved oil
the risks Of changing market BY
selling at once but they are quite Will