Montpelier examiner. [volume] (Montpelier, Idaho) 1895-1937, 1922-01-26
III


II
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 APP
preached with any general imputation
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
chicanery should persist on any Inn
portant scale In these days Of busl
ness integrity would seem almost in,
credible, but there is much evidence
that It does SO persist. Even as
write, the newspapers announce the
suspension of several firms from the
New York Produce Exchange for ex-
! porting to Germany as No. wheat
whole shipload of grossly inferior wheat
mixed with oats, chair 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
emit 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
enee between what the farmer re-
ceives and what the consumer pays
often exceeds all possibility Of justi-
feation. To cite single illustration
Last year, according to figures attest
ed by the railways and the growers,
Georgia Observation-Disclosures received
on the average 10 cents for q melon,
the railroads got 12.7 cents for carry
Ing It to Baltimore and the consumer
paid one dollar, leaving 1913 cents for
J 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 tn.
+ 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 car
!. curtail production without too grea
n injury to themselves or the commu
nifty; but If the farmer restricts Inf
Z output, it is with disastrous conse
/ Quences, both to himself and to tn
4 community.
s The average farmer is busy witt
Q production for the major part of tn
n year. and has nothing TO sell. TIL
]. bulk of his output comes on the MAJ
;. ket at once. Because of lack of stol
i. age facilities and of financial support
d the farmer cannot carry his good
!. through the year and dispose of ther
/. as they are currently needed. In til
!. great majority of cases, farmers hav
!. to entrust storage-In warehouses an
] elevators-and the financial earryin
!. Of their products TO others.
j Farm products are generally MAJ
Il keted at time when there is col
4 gestion OF both transportation an
o inance-when cars and money an
!. Scarce. The outcome, In many II
q stances, ID that the farmers not onl
g sell under pressure, and therefore 1
disadvantage, but are compelled /
!. take further reductions In net return
r. In order TO meet the charges for q
q service Of storing Transporting, flnan
!. Ing, and ultimate marketing while
!. charges they claim, are often exec
= sive, bear heavily on both consum.
q and producer, and are under the co
/. troll Of those performing the service
II Ii true that they are relieved {
m the risks of a changing market b
r. selling at once: but they are quite vii