The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1922-04-06
The PinhOOker Answered.

Just as the first lap in the race
has been won for cooperative mar
keting of tobacco, the fight by the
pinhooker and speculator against the
movement is becoming more intense.
In this article, it will be the object
e. the writer to deal only with the
commodity tobacco as handled by the
cooperative method of marketing,
and answer some of the arguments
being used against the system. It is
little strange that you never hear
one say that the cooperative system
Of marketing is not theoretically and
economically sound. What they do
say is, that it is fine for all other
commodities except tobacco; that to-
tacco is such a mysterious product
that it will not work. To these
doubling Thomases, we would brief
ly call attention to the different class
Is favoring the movement in gen.
eral way. Then we will enumerate
the class making the fight against
the pooling of the tobacco crop, leav-
ing the public to be tie judge as to
their true motives.
Theodore Roosevelt was warm
advocate of the system, so was Ex-
President Wilson. President Harding,
in his December message to congress,
told that body: Every proper en-
ccuragement should be given to the
cooperative marketing programs"
Congress has shown its approval by
assing the Clayton amendment to
the Sherman Antitrust law. We
have the war finance committee and
legal reserve banks backing us. The
entire agricultural department at
Washington is behind the movement.
Also the state agricultural depart
nents are behind it. The railroads
are backing it through their indus
trial departments. The local banks
all over Virginia, North Carolina and
South Carolina nave offered support
to the movement. About all of the
newspapers are talking for it. Most
Of the intelligent and best read farm
crs are members already.
Now we have on the other side, the
small specular; the "pin-hooker;" the
small buyer for the big company, who
is afraid he will lose his job; all to-
bacco auctioncers and 2 good many
tobacco speculating warehousemen;
and one tobacco journal.
Now let US analyze few of the
arguments used against the move
ment. We will not deal with Cali
fonia, Denmark, Ireland, or any 9TH
er of the various communities where
cooperative marketing has proven so
successful. In the first place we will
presume for arguments sake that we
have a ninety or ninety-fve per cent.
sign up of all bright tobacco in the
three states, as we propose to have
before We stop.
In regard to re-drying for export
and the domestic trade. we would an
swer that there is nothing to hinder
/ the export man and the domestic man.
nfacturer from buying his tobacco in
bulk at 4 stated price per grade from
the association, and having the de-
liveries made just as they are now;
the exporter or manufacturer having
Ifis representative, together with the
associations representative to pass
Upon the grades as they are received.
Then they could take this tobacco
and re-dry it to suit themselves in
their own plants.
If on the other hand, they prefer
aiting, then the tobacco viii be re-
dried by the most modern methods,
and the exporter will have to buy
it in this form, and pay his duty on
the excess moisture. Now, you ask
who will fix the price? A careful
cost estimate will be made accord
ing to the ruling price of labor, fer
tilizer, etc. To this will be added
reasonableprofit, which every farmer
IS due. This, then will be the price.
They say that the farmer will demand
en unreasonable price. We answer
that they cannot prove this by the
history of any cooperative market
ing association. They make a great
deal of the argument of the exces-
sive operating expenses. The farm
er now pays directly, by having it
deducted from his sales statement,
the warehouse rent, the clerical force,
the auctioneer, the truck hands, and
J living to the proprietors. He pays
indirectly, by having it deducted from
the price of his product, for all loss
il weight, I'll buying expenses, all
| ,adrvipp eynnnseS and in addition