The Bozeman courier. (Bozeman, Mont.) 1919-1954, 1923-05-30

intent he sets about to pervert, dis
tort, misquote and garble. Indeed,
in this respect it might almost be
called a work Of art. 1t had not oc-
Cured to nae, however, that anyone
who is even slightly familiar with ag-
ricultural and business conditions
during the past three years would fail
to recognize the article for exactly
what it is, but 1 am quite willing to
answer your letter.
"First, as to the index number used
by the department of agriculture.
This index number does not purport
to show the purchasing power of the
individual farmer nor of farmers gen.
orally. What it does show IS the
purchasing power of units Of farm
products expressed in terms Of other
commodities. To use the simplest IL
lustration, take any year, 1913 for
| example, as a base from which to
make comparisons. In that year
which is taken as a base the corn
grower could haul 100 bushels of corn
to market and with the money re-
ceived for it could buy and haul home
a certain quantity Of other commod-
tiles. Now, let 100 represent the
quantity of other commodities which
his 100 bushels of corn would buy IL
1913. The question is, what numbel
would represent the quantity Of othe,
commodities which 100 bushels o
corn would buy in 1922? That mum
Der is considered the index humble
which shows the purchasing power o
corr in 1922, as compared with tn
, purchasing power of corn in 1913
Taking 1913 as a base and lettin
100 represent the purchasing powe
of the major farm products of ths
D year, our calculations indicate ths
SO would represent the p%urchasin
power of the same farm product
: in the year 1922. That is, the far
products considered would buy
1922 only 90 per cent as much
other commodities, such as cloth, fue
building materials, ETC., as the san
= products would buy in 1913. That
: what the department of agricultul
index figure means, expressed l n Il
= simplest terms.
= = y = + = = 4 = +
"The members of your own organize
ton are perhaps most competent
express an opinion as to the accura'
{ of this department index numbe
Let me suggest that you ask a repr
: sentative number of them wheth'
+ from their own practical experience
selling farm crops and buying 9TH
commodities this index number of
for 1922 does in fact Measure the I
il lationship of the prices of the far
= crops they sold and of the other cor
e modities they bought.
! = = = Z = = = = + =
"To show how unfairly the writ
n of the article has used this ind
e e number of 1929 Of the departing
4 of commerce, it is only necessary
point out that in this same table t
IS theoretical purchasing power Of
lie farm products is given as 87h
re 1920, and as 90 in 1921, from which
i, is made to appear that in these t.
II years of the most eve agricultul
m depression the present generation
k farmers has experienced, the theor
m zeal purchasing power of all ia,
products is greater than in any
d the prosperous years from 1900
1909. For example, in 1900 it is 73
in 1905, 77.8; in 1906, 8O.6, etc.
h. "This is sufficient to show how
n writer of the article grossly perve
ed and mis~interpreted this index nu
81 Der Of the department of CONNIE
CO and how impossible it is to comp
ID. such index number with the int
number of the department of agriC
IT. ture.
"The chief criticism made by
writer of the article and by the
itor of the paper in which it is r
hy- lished seems to be that because
department has been pointing out
relation between prices of farm !