The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1923-02-02

Give Greater Value for Money.
Now, let US talk little about the
effect of this business upon the con-
sumer.
Farmers and their families, and the
tiny rural communities which are de-
pendent almost entirely upon their
support, themselves constitute nearly
half of the consumers of this country.
Nevertheless, we will bar them from
this particular phase of the discussion.
The consumers who are to be consid-
cred here are the nOn-farming half
of the consuming public.
Admittedly, these new cooperative
marketing associations are compact
and powerful in form. Nay, more, a
few of them control the sale of more
than half of the commodity in which
they are operating, and all of them
are striving to become as large as
possible and obtain control of dom
inant portion of their crop. These
crops are necessities which you and
every other must must buy to eat
and clOthe yourself. Therefore, it is
possible that, before you understand,
you view this movement with alarm
and say to yourself, "Good Heavens!
What is this-anOther group Of ter
rible trusts which is springing I'D to
turn Mr.. Common People upside
down and shake the last nickel out of
his pOcket?"
CO-Ops Are Beneficial.
Nothing could be further from the
actual truth, which is that these Co
operative associations have got to
make themselves a positive benefit to
you, the consumer, or go out Of bust
ness.
The Supreme court of the United
States not long ago had before it pro-
ceedings to dissolve the United States
Steel corporation, which sells some
thing like so per cent Of the steel pro-
duced in the United States. In spite
of our antitrust laws, the Supreme
court refused to do this, holding that
the United States Steel corporation
might be a practical monopoly and not
trust in the offensive sense. It did
not, found the court, indulge in per
niciOus practices to raise prices, it did
not put competitors out of business,
and, in general, it tended to do good
to the general public by its stabilizing
influence in the steel market, and not
to do harm.
CO-Ops Can't Be Offensive
That decision was based upon the
way in which the United States Steel
corporation was being managed. AT
any time, it might conduct itself diff
ferently and come under the provisions
of the antitrust laws. The case with
your cooperative marketing associa-
ton is very different to that. The
cooperating marketing association
has not the power to become an Of
fensive trust, even if it wanted to, and
here is the reason in a nutshell:
A cooperative marketing associa-
tiOn, no matter whether it controls 10
per cent Of the crop or 95 per cent of
the crop, cannot control production.
This is the case with your industrial
trust or even with a perfectly orga-
nized labor organization. Your trust
can shut down its factories. Your la
dor union can call its workers out on
strike. But no cooperative market
ing association can make the Ameri-
can farmer strike, or shut down Amer
lean farms.
Coop Power Restricted
Please note that I am not saying
that the cooperative associations dc
not do this, I am saying that they
cannot do it. It is beyond their pow
er.
One reason is that they are speci-
ficaIly given no such power in their
contracts with their member farmers
If they were, they would become il
legal as being in restraint of trade
just as any other monopoly of similar
size would come under the common
law governing restraint of trade. They
have to take in any farmer who wants
to join on the same basis as every 9TH
er farmer, and they have to handle
very bit Of the product which he pro-
duces.
Another reason is that even if they
were given the nominal power to con
troll production they could not exer-
else it.
Attempts to make the farmer cut
down acreage or otherwise curtail pro.
duction in the face of higher prices
have been made again and again By
farmers movements of a different
type. They have always failed. The
only production reducer on the Ameri
can farm is production at a loss. anC