Tombstone epitaph. (Tombstone, Ariz.) 1887-current, 1922-01-22
ii

Let us, then. consider some OF the
, farmers grievances. and see how far
they are real. In doing 50. we should
remember that. while there have been.
and still are. instances Of purposefui
abuse. the subject should not be ap-
preached with any general inputation
to existing distributlve 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 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
chlcanery should persist on any I'M
portsnt scale In these days of bust
ness integrity would seem almost in
credible, but there Is much evidence
that II does so persist. Even as I
write. the newspapers announce the
suspension of several firms from the
New York Produce Exchange for ex-
porting to Germany as No 2 wheat a
whole shpload OF grossly inferior wheat
mixed with oats. chat 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"
greater grievance Is that at pres
ent the field farmer has little or No
control over the time and conditions
al 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 justl-
ficaticn. To cite a single Illustration
Last year. according to figures attest
ed by the railways and the growers,
Georgia watermeion-ralsers received
on the average rs cents for a melon,
the railroads got 12.1 cents for carry
ing 1t to Baltimore and the consumer
paid one dollar. leaving T9s cents for
the service Of marketing and Its risks,
as against 202 cents for growing and
transporting. The hard annals Of
farm-life are replete with such CON-
mentaries on the crvdeness 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 a. 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-
output, 1t 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. Because Of lack Of stor-
age facilities and Of financial supDort.
the farmer cannot carry his goods
through the year and dispose Of them
~ they are currently needed. In the
great majority Of cases, farmers have
to entrust storage-in warehouses and
elevators-snd the financial carrying
Of their products TO others
Farm products are generally mar.
keted at a time when there r. a CON
gestion Of both transportation and
hnance-when cars and money are
scarce. The outcome, In many In
stances, IL that the farmers NOT oniy
sell under pressure. and therefore u
q disadvantage. but are compelled tn
take further reductions In net returns.
In order to meet the charges for the
service Of storing. transporting, flnane-
ing. and ultimate interchangeable
charges they claim, are often Sxces-
sive. bear heavily on both Consumer
and producer. and are under the con
troll Of those performing the services
Il 10 true that they are relieved oR
the risks Of q changing markst b.