Morgan County Democrat. (McConnelsville, Ohio) 1886-1943, 1936-10-29
LETTER OF READER DISCUSSES
FARMERS CASH INC ONE
Mr.. Raymond Durbin, Editor,
Morgan County Democrat,
McConnelsville, Ohio.
October "a, 1896.

MC10uQolSN lie, OHIO.
October "a, 1896.
Dear Friend: My question is, in
the face of an ST. 90 increase in the
cash income of the farmer and a
91% increase in the average prices
which he receives for his products,
why should the farmer, of all people,
vote for Landon? For almost a
score Of years, the relative economic
position Of the farmer has been
gradually declining and he has been
increasingly demanding that some
thing be done about it. Likewise,
during this time, politicians have
been increasingly yociferous with
their promises of agricultural aid
but until 1888, the net results of all
these promises were high tariff on
farm products and the federal farm
board Both of these things were
ineffective as the increasing diff
culties of the farmer proved. Re-
gardless Of the arguments pro and
con on the value Of a high tariff on
those things of which we have an
eXportable surplus, the fact still re-
mains that the farmers prices con-
tinued to go down and down The
federal farm board also proved in
effective because it is obvious that
prices can not be held up by piling
up surplus which everybody knows
is there and hiding it behind q
screen. The only way to make this
sort of plan work would be not 10
hide the surplus but to destroy it.
This calls forth two objectiyes, one
financial and the other economic.
0l
be encouraged and the cost of such
a plan would become prohibitive.
Second, the destruction of such
large amount OF wealth, already
produced would seem uneconOmic.
The condition which resulted from
these ineffective measures was that
the farmers prices continued to de-
cline and he found himself trying
to produce more and more in order
to make both ends meet. This proc
ess naturally only tended to accel-
crate an already destructive trend.
What is the solution. or is there
none? Can we determine the an
swer in any better way than to look
about for examples of some who are
producing and making money?
a part of my task is to make out
weekly reports showing the book /
ings of our companys products by
our statesmen in the field. The pro-
duction department is waiting anx-
iously each week for these reports. |
The schedule is watched so closely |
that absolutely nothing is made for
which the sale is not in positive evil
dence In this way, we hold down
our costs, maintain our prices and
make a profit. If ! were to suggest |
to the management that the factory
be operated at full capacity and the
products put on the market and sold
for what they would bring, they
would consider me a nut" and that
is what | would be, Such a plan
would be grossly uneconomic un-
less, perhaps, all production was
run on the same basis, but all pro-
duction is not run on this basis In
fact, no production is run on this
basis except the farmers, which is
grossly uneconomic for the same
reasons While manufacturing con- {
Germs would not for moment con- (
slider running their factories at full
capacity, selling what they could at {
a given price and destroying the bal {
ance of their products, yet they will
and do consider it advisable to limit
production and not manufacture
in excess of what they can
sell at their price. Why does not
this same principle apply to the
federal farm board
surplus? While it would seem UNI
to accumulate and then t
destroy vast amounts of farm pro !
duce in order to hold up prices, yet |
it is nothing but good business prac- 9
tice to limit the production of this
produce in order to create the same
effect. This is precisely what the -
present administration has attempt I
"a to do and it is the first admins
trati"n which has attempted to do s
it. Because of lack Of unity among }
the farmers they have not been able s
g. do it themselves in the way that Z
q Well-0rganized industrial concern
is able 10 do it. Naturally, any as
ist2rce 10 the farmer in maintain
in his prices, regardless of how !
q nc. VIII increase, one way or an t
c5Es". the cost of living for the city
This increase may show up /
eI tir2ly in the increased cost Of food 9
j
crc3aFd -a% q, depending upon how (
1a is attained. Food prices in
ih lis have increased 40%o since |
1asa. p this is the city mans I
! 08V. not the farmers. Such in
{ cd cost was not engendered
& rrfg the last three Republican ad- i
sll.s ia ions because they felt that 3
wauid lose many city votes by
doing and that they could retain /
II fam rs vote on promises alone. {
III ottar words. they feared that the
at. 10 II would vote for his own in /
forests, but they believed that the s
rmer would cling to the politics of Y
his fatler and grandfather, regard +
less ~ his own interests. 1t is no i
more than natural that the city man I
sh ould want his cost of living to be /
rs low as possible and he can not be J
criticized for voting accordingly.
Likewise, it is natural for the farm ]
r to want mis- prices to be as high z
,c nagSibIa and Won would think Il