Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-02-28
Report CriticiZes
Marketing Service
of Potato EXCHANGE
Joint Commission Says No Evidence Of Dis
honesty or lncompetency Apparent in Deal
ings With Whitehall Growers.
Special TO The Tribune.

Special TO The Tribune.
Helena, Feb. 27.-While no EVIL
dences of dishonesty or incompetence
has been found by the state depart
ment Of agriculture in connection witt
the dealings Of the Northwest Potato
Exchange with the growers of White
hall and vicinity, the department does
find that the growers are faced with
certain disadvantages in connection
with their marketing contracts anf
that there is ample room for improve
ment in the service.
The report of Commissioner Chester
g. Davis and of Fred G. Sumner, OF
Clyde Park, acting joint commissioner
upon the hearing recently conducted a
Whitehall upon the complaint of vari-
Gus potato growers, has just been COM
pleted after an exhaustive study Of
the evidence presented at the hearing
and after all of the favorable and tnr
favorable features of the controversy
| had been inquired intes
Complaints Aver Incompetence
The complaints, which were investi-
gated by the joint commission, set
forth that the contract presented BY
| the exchange to the farmers is not q
| fair contract: that the representatives
Of the exchange held out false repre-
sensations to the farmers to induce
| them to sign the contract; that these
| representations were not fulfilled, nor
were the obligations of the distributor
as designated in the agreement, COM
piled with; that there was ineempe-
tence amounting to criminal negligence
| Al 1,rn Of tho at the
growers. failure to make adequate re-
| turns, and disposition to be not
frank in dealings or fair in controyer-
sizes that have arisen.
| The examination by the joint com
mission took into consideration the
progress and marketing results. In the
| individual eases of SO ears Of pota-
toes shipped from this locality under
contracts with the potato exchange.
A study of the contract signed by
| the grower impressed the commission
with the idea that the Northwest 20
| tato Exchange is commission nrm
| without cooperative features ana It's
| contract binds the grower TO deliver
! h;s crop on board cars subject to sale
or disposition as the exchange sees
| Fit, to nav 10 per cent commission Tor
| this service, to permit the exchange TO
| deduct from the proceeds of the sale
| 81 ner acre for advertising, or, ID the
event of violation of the contract hy
ths grower to collect damages at the
rate of $50 per acre, to permit .he
exchange to pool the grower pota-
| toes with those Of others aecoraing 70
. grade. while on the other hahd the
exchange agrees to maintain fieid men
| who will advise as to best methoos o.
planting, cultivating, harvesting, sfhu-
| ing and loading potatoes. to ehdeasur
~ saoure the hest results in market
| ing. to keep grower posted on marhet
CONDITIONS and To account promptly TO
the grower.
Contract Up to Grower
| THE question as to the fairness OF
| tho contract is one the commission IA
not feel like deciding as It IS up -
| the grower to sign it or leave IT, pu,,
| having signed it, he is bound by IFS
! conditions. a., ho
/ The commission expresses the pc
! lief that the contract Is not suliiciehl-
| " specific in defining the deaueli95 y:
to be made from expenses as IN auo. ;.
ton to the 10 per cent comhissioa !,
is found that the grower must nus sta sno
. brokerage charge of from AlU TO Gu
nor ear to the commission mouse
tbraueb which the sale is eventually
made. together with other charge not
| anticipated by the grower.
The report indicates belief OF Ten
denev upen the part of field men 10
| auote prices leading the growers 10
Relieve thew will receive larger returns
| than what they eventually receive
AZ ia results obtained by growers
Who 40 made the complaint, the report
| says: -,,oa
eft must be remembered that the
sh;pmeuts which the commission eA-
ahmed we're all lots compliance. OF by
the growers. and the following figures
cover only carloads whose owners were
dissatisfied over the sales. VI the 80
ears examined "a had returned TO tne
growers an average of approximately
57 cents hundred weight, sacked.
Two were still in storage on the GATE
Of hearing. OF these. 10 carloads hao
been sent out with inspection state
ments from the field men or the eA-
change such as would lead the growers
reasonably to conclude that they were
| u. S. No. / grade. Potatoes were sent
out unsold, diverted from place ~
place, and finally disposed or "hlch
| from the field mems designation We :fs
not of maturity or quality TO JUSTIFY
long shipment. TO Illustrate: on one
! carload of potatoes that was soid ID
| New Orleans at figure that failed by
500 to pay the freight, the field men
at shipping point had reported one lot
as some scab; not fully matured: good
stock not overly large and on the
other lot good, clean quality, not fuliy
matured.
AT the time these potatoes were
going to market a threatened railway
strike caused congestion at market
centers with delay and loss to shippers.
There was sharply declining market.
| 1t is interesting to note, however, that
during this period, from September 70
to early November, prices to growers
at Idaho Falls, where purchases are
made on basis OF +. o. b. price at
shipping point, ranged between " and
| 81 so per hundred weight, with an
average, according to government re-
ports, of around $1.25 for potatoes
grading Z. s. No. L.
No Evidence of Dishonesty.
because of slowness and lack of de-
tail in the returns made to growers,
says the report, many shippers were
led to believe that the exchange has
been dishonest, The commission finds
no evidence of dishonesty, but on the
other hand apparently every effort
- 20