Browning chief. [volume] (Browning, Mont.) 1941-1953, 1945-10-12

sAAS So-oPeI dLlVe quSSLlOu uOW, u
ly rooted underlying causes, pri
the traditional American bust
ness system. In this respect, the
whole cooperative development
may well shape as an economic
evolution, though frequent
cycles have robbed it of the con-
sistency necessary for historical
reform.
At the present time, however,
American co-operatives are on a
rising tide, with the strongly
established farm organizations
numbering 100000 members
being steadily complemented by
urban consumer and manufac-
turing groups. During the 1943-'44
season rural marketing and purchas-
ing co-operatives alone did over 5
billion dollars worth of business,
mostly on tax-free basis.
As a result of the steady growth
OF co-operatives spearheaded by the
farmer associations, and their ex-
tension into various fields, tradi-
tionally established American bust
nessmen are stirring uneasily.'
Whereas only the handler and sup
pier Of agricultural products and
material formerly had been pressed
by the co-operatives, competition
now has been extended to manu-
facturers of farm machinery, hard
ware, paints, electric refrigerators,
washing machines, coasters, clocks,
cigars, cigarettes, ipstick, tires and
batteries.
In addition, co-operatives now
drill wells, own pipe lines, refine
petroleum, possess timber tracts,
write insurance, and operate banks,
telephone companies and electric
power installations.
From the beginning, the co-opera-
tive movement assumed the nature
of joint enterprise for performing
non-proftable service for each
participants individual welfare.
Though contemporary history
traces the real origin of the cooper
alive movement back to Rochdale,
England, where poor working peo-
pie organized grocery coop in
1874 to avail themselves of cheaper
food, some historians credit the
birth of the movement to local farm
groups which banded together in
the U. S. in the 1905 to reduce in
surance costs.
Following the establishment of the
local fire insurance groups, the CO.
operative movement assumed an
other form in the U. S. after the
civil war in the national farm
Grange, social and educational or
ganization also bent upon relieving
stringent economic conditions. Even
tually turning to cooperative meth
DDS to attain its early detectives,
the Grange failed in promoting a
purchasing coop because of the un-
scrupulosity Of agents; begged in
pushing consumer co-ops partly as a
result of the panic of 1873, and gave
up farm machinery manufacture
ing coop following overproduction
and Understanding.
As the cooperative movement be-
gan to take root here during World
War and congress recognized it as
an instrument for aiding the farm
producer, legislation was enacted to
afford tax relief to operators. In
1916, congress stipulated that farm
ers, fruit growers and like associ-
atoms organized and operated on a
cooperative basis and acting as
selling agents for their members
should not be requested to pay an
income tax on earnings.
In subsequent legislation, the
solons provided that co-operatives
could purchase as well as sell for
producers; deal with non-members
as well as members; become cor
porations and pay interest on stock,
and not be prosecuted under the
antitrust laws.
The government also set up fed
eral agency to loan money to CO.
operatives in 1921, with the financial
machinery expanded through the
farm credit act of 1888. In 1888, the
securities act also permitted COOP
eratives to sell equities without
prior approval of the Securities and
Exchange commission, which exer-
cises that right over corporate is
sues. ...s
Though historians claim for the
U. s. the credit for the birth of the
cooperative movement, the Roch-
dale enterprise of 1874 still receives
Eanfc m Form purnh q c;nn -