Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1924-02-03
BY WILL p. KENNEDY.

Eressmen holding the balance of power
who are primarily concerned about the
welfare of the farmers, and with CO.
operative marketing the outstanding
movement in American agriculture.
widespread interest is being shown in
the bill introduced by Representative
Arthur b. Williams, republican. of
Michigan for creation of a federal CO.
operative marketing system for farm
products
This interest is taken by such agen-
cies and organizations as the United
States Department of Agriculture. the
agricultural department of the United
States Chamber of Commerce. the Grain
Growers Exchange, United States
Wheat Growers. Inc: the National
Grange and cooperative marketing as
sociations all over the country.
This legislation is the third big step
In the cooperative movement for eco
homie efficiency in distribution OF food
products, with speculation and waste
reduced to d minimum. ruinous compe-
ton for nearby markets eliminated.
Sterilization of prices without pricc-fiX-
ing and putting the farmer for the
hrst time on a business basis.
More than a billion dollars worth of
the products of American farms in 1922
we're marketed by cooperative associa-
tons. Fully 10 per cent of the citrus
fruits produced in this country-princi-
pally oranges, grapefruit and lemons
went to market through cooperative
channels.
English System Copied.
The first step was the cooperative
buying movement. copied from the
Eochdale Society in England, which for
more than thrce-quarters OF d century
has been a Cooperative beacon for
the world, being today the largest EN-
ployer of labor in England, operating
steamship lines, coal mines, dairy farms
and factories with $4,000 employees.
The 1000 so-called cooperative grain
elevators in the Mississippi valley are
an outgrowth of this system. The basic
reason for success of the system in Eng
land was that England is not a
producer of raw material. The Roch-
s.ale system requires capital stock so
that there may be money to buy such
products as grain and the payment as
dividends of whatever profit may re-
suit. The evil of this has been pay
nlent of various prices to the producer.
whatever he was willing to take.
The second step was the producers
cooperative movement, as distin-
Suished from the consumers move
ment. Cooperative marketing along
this line in the United States followed
tho example of Swiss dairy farmers,
who had two centuries of experience.
Experiments in cooperative dairying
were made In Connecticut as early
as 1910, but the first really success
full cooperative marketing was in
Wisconsin in 1871, when cooperative
cheese marketing was established.
The first group of American farmers
to win notable success in co-opera-
tive marketing on d large scale was
the growers of citrus fruits in south
ern California, who banded together
thirty years ago, and their organiza-
ton is today probably the best
known co-operatives in the world.
Proposed System In u. $.
The third step is now proposed by
Representative Williams, who seeks
to provide an organization plan for
all local and state farm product CO.
operatives and to bring about their
correlation into q national system.
Success of the existing cooperative
marketing system is due to the fact
that 1t is q non dividend paying sys-
tom, composed of producers only, who
pool their crops and then divide the
returns in proportion to the quantity
they pool. California's notable sue
cess in cooperative marketing of
citrus fruits-raisins, prunes, etc.-is
in part attributable to a restricted
area and restricted product. Cali
fornia and Florida produce more than
80 per cent of the American citrus
fruit crop; California produces prac-
tically all the lemons, while Florida
produces about 80 per cent of the
grapefruit. But the situation in re-
gard to wheat, potatoes and other
products is different These are
grown In practically every state of
the Union. Representative Williams
seeks to get away from the question
of locality and make the marketing
national.
Throughout the west, producers in
various localities have been banded
together in cooperative associations.
AS result we SEQ these local CO.
operatives fighting against each
other foTs the same market, thereby
holding Prices down and Cutting
those markets, while other markets
which would pay higher prices do
not get these farm products
National Organization.
The Williams bill tends to bring
all these co-operatives into a nation
al organization to distribute their
, products in all the markets. Cali
fornia experienced the local rivalry
IN the old days, but has 228 local
orange associations federated into
twenty districts. which maintain one
central exchange which actually han
dies the fruit.
It has been found that, while the
GARNER Is an individual producer, the
marketing Of farm crops is g. group
and not an individual problem. Rep
resentative Williams, who has had
practical experience in the manage
ment Of one of the largest industrial
Concerns in the country, besides be-
ing an eminently successful corpora
ton counsel, finds that there is not
a feature Of merchandising from the
manufacturers standpoint but that can
be applied to the agricultural situation.
: Successful marketing, he points out,
requires a knowledge of market
needs and demands, money condi-