The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1922-01-27
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 distrlbutlve agencies Of de-
Iiberately intentional oppression, but
rather with the conception that the |
marketing of farm products has not
been modernized.
An ancient evil and 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 i'm.
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
write. the newspapers announce the
suspension of several firms from the
New York Produce Exchange for ex.
porting to Germany as No. 2 wheat
whole shipioad of grossly inferior wheat
mixed with oats, chaff and the like.
Another evil is that of inaccurate
weighing of farm products, which. IL
is charged. is sometimes 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
ence between what the. farmer re-
ceives and what the consumer pays
often exceeds all possibility of jusu-
ficatlon. To cite a single Illustration.
Last year, according to figures attest
ed by the railways and the growers,
| Georgia watermelon-ralsers received
on the average rs cents for q melon.
the railroads got 1921 cents for carry
ing 1t to Baltimore and the consumer
paid one dollar, leaving 79.S 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 IL 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
year, and has nothing to sell. The
bulk of his output comes on the mar
ket at once. h 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 storage--in warehouses and
elevators-and the financial carrying
Of their products to others.
Farm products are generally mar
keted at time when there is con
gestion Of both transportation and
finance--when cars and money arr
scarce. The outcome, in many In
stances, is that the farmers not only
sell under pressure, and therefore a
a disadvantage, but are compelled Il
take further reductions In net returns
In order to meet the charges for tn,
service Of storing, transporting, financ
ing, and ultimate marketing-whicl
charges they claim, are often exces
sive, bear heavily on both consume
and producer, and are under the con
troll of those performing the services
1t Is true that they are relieved o
! the risks OF changing market b,
SaIifnfs ~ tinrp htt they lre anita will