The Lee County journal. (Leesburg, Ga.) 1904-19??, 1922-01-13

anu Win OilItf lNQHStIJeS|
-
II
Let rs, then, consider some or the
farmers grievances, and see how far
they are real In doing so, we should
remember that, while there have been,
and stnl are, instances Of purposeful
abuse, the subject should not be APP
preached with any general imputatlon
to existing dstributiye agencies of de-
liberateIy intentional oppression, but
rather with the conception that the
marketing Of farm products has not
been moderniZed.
IN ancient evil, and a persistent
one, is the undergrading OF farm prod
ucts, with tho result that what the
farmers sci! as of one quality is re-
sold as Of a higher That this sort Of
chcanery Should persist on any I'M
portant scale in these days OF bust
ness integrity would seem almost In
credible, bot there is much evidence
that it does 50 persist. Even as |
write, the newspapers announce the
suspension Of several firms from the
New York Produce Exchange for ex-
porting to Germany rs No. . wheat a
whole shipload Of grossly inferior wheat
mixed with oats, chatr and the like.
Another evil is that Of inaccurate
weighing of farm products, which, 1t
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 underpaid for
his products and usually overcharged
Tor marketing service. The differ
ence betWeenN what the farmer re-
celves and what TIE consumer pays
often exceeds all possibility Of JUST
fication. 70 cite "A single Illustration
Last year, according to figures attest
ed by the railways and the growers,
Georgia Observation-Disclosures received
on the average rs cents for melon,
the railroads got 1871 cents for carry
ing 1t to Baltimore and the consumer
paid one dollar, leaving 1913 cents for
The service of marketing and it's risks,
as against 20.2 cents for growing and
Transporting. The hard annals Of
farm-lfe are replete with such COM
mentarles 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 hlm TO sell them at the
same time. As a rule, other industries
are in 4 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 his
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
wear, 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 % eases, farmers have
to enuust storage-in 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-
gestion 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 al
a disadvantage, but 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
siye. 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