The Bamberg herald. (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, February 09, 1922, Page 4, Image 4
Some Aspe<
Farmer
m'
By BERNARD
(Reprinted from j
The whole rural world Is In a ferI
ment of unrest, and there is an un1^-0
paralleled volume and intensity of determined,
if not angry, protest, and an
ominous swarming of occupational con#fli?nn/ino
fTFAlinintrQ nnl I tlcfll
iuiwuav ? Ep.
movements and propaganda. Such a
|p' . turmoil cannot but arrest our atten|\
tlon. Indeed, it demands our careful j
study and examination. It Is not like- !
ly that six million aloof and ruggedly j
independent men have come together !
and banded themselves into active
rv unions, societies, farm bureaus, and so
forth, for no sufficient cause,
jft: Investigation of the subject conclu|g^.
* sively proves that, while there is much
<n.;a<?an/>aa and mis
u vci auiLtriiicut vjl uuv.^
M& conception of remedies, the farmers
are right in complaining of wrongs
long endured, and right In holding that
^: It is feasible to relieve their ills with
B|y' benefit to the rest of the community.
This being the case of an industry
that contributes, in the raw material ;
form alone, about one-third of the na
ffi tional annual wealth production and
B 18 the means of livelihood of about 49
| per cent of the population, it is ob*
vious that the subject is one of grave
||. . concern. Not only do the farmers
make up one-half of the nation, but
ft. the well-being of the other half deep;
* pends upon them.
So long as we have nations, a wise
Dolitcial economy will aim at a large
t degree of national self-sufficiency and
p self-containment Rome fell when the
food supply was too far removed from
the belly. Like her, we shall destroy
our own agriculture and extend our
sources of food distantly and precariously,
if we do not see to it that our
farmers are well and fairly paid for
their services. The farm gives the
nation men as well as food. Cities
derive their vitality and are forever
renewed from the country, but an impoverished
countryside exports intelli
genee and retains umnteuigence.
||v-v Only the lower grades of mentality
llj and character will remain on, or seek,
the farm, unless agriculture is capable
of being pursued with contentment and
|||;; adequate compensation. Hence, to emP|
bitter and impoverish the farmer Is to
dry up and contaminate the vital
sources of the nation.
The war showed convincingly how
Bp;' dependent the nation is on the full
K-.' productivity of the farms. Despite
herculean efforts, agricultural production
kept only a few weeks or months
ji|v / ahead of consumption, and that only
' hw inprMsin? the acreaae of certain
|k staple crops at the cost of reducing
i^1 that of others. We ought not to for
get that lesson when we ponder on
the farmer's problems. They are truly
common problems, and there should
?be no attempt to deal with them as
If they were purely selfish demands
P of a clear-cut group, antagonistic to
the rest of the community. Rather
p should we consider agriculture In the
1^ light of broad national policy. Just
g* \ as we consider oil, coal, steel, dyestuffs.
and so forth, as sinews of na
Itional strength. Our growing popula\
tion and a higher standard of living
demand increasing food supplies, and
more wool, cotton, hides, and the rest
With the disappearance of free or
cheap fertile land, additional acreage
and increased yields can come only
from costly effort This we need not
expect from an impoverished or unhappy
rural population.
Tt will not do to take a narrow view
of the rural discontent, or to appraise
|p-. It from the standpoint of yesterday.
R:* This is peculiarly an age of flux and
' change and new deals. Because a
|r thing always has been so no longer
means that it is righteous, or always
shall be so. More, perhaps, than ever
before, there is a widespread feeling
that all human relations can be im
* * Li 3 U
I proved Dy taxing uiuugm, emu mac it
Is not becoming for the reasoning animal
to leave his destiny largely to
chance and natural incidence.
Prudent and orderly adjustment* Of
production and distribution in accordance
with consumption is recognized
as wise management In every busing
tKot nf farming. Yet. I venture
UUb WMMV V* c- r
| to say, there Is no other industry fn
'which It Is so Important to the public?to
the city-dweller?that production
should be sure, steady, and increasing,
and that distribution should
be in proportion to the need. The unorganized
farmers naturally act blindly
imrmicjvpjv and. in eonse
quence, surfeit and dearth, accompanied
by disconcerting price-variations,
harass the consumer. One year potatoes
rot in the fields because of excess
'<r: production, and there is a scarcity of
the things that have been displaced
tn mnke wav for the expansion of the
?
potato acreage; next year the punished
farmers mass their fields on some
other crop, and potatoes enter the
class of luxuries; and so on.
Agriculture is the greatest and fundamentally
the most Important of our
American industries. The cities ire
but the branches of the tree of naHnrial
life, the roots of which go deep*
?
ly Into the land. We all flourish 07
decline with the farmer. So, when tee
of the cities read of the present T?ni
?' ... verbal distress of the farmers, of a
slump of six billion dollars In the far?p
? value of their crops iu a single year,
?v:,'f:
'
f
;ts of the
s' Problems
M. BARUCH
Atlantic Monthly)
j of their inability to meet mortgagee or
to pay current bills, and how, seeking
relief from their ills, they are planning
to form pools, inaugurate farm|
ers' strikes, and demand legislation
I abolishing grain exchanges, private
j cattle markets, and the like, we ought
| not hastily to brand them as economic
I heretics and highwaymen, and hurl at
I - - . ~ ,
tnem tne cnarge 01 Deing seesers 01
special privilege. Rather, we should
j ask if their trouble is not ours, and
I see what can be done to improve the
situation. Purely from self-interest,
If for no higher motive, we should
help them. All of us want to get back
| permanently to "normalcybut is it
! reasonable to hope for that condition
| unless our greatest and most basic in!
dustry can be put on a sound aDd solid
permanent foundation? The farmers
are not entitled to special privileges;
but are they not right in demanding
that they be placed on an equal footing
with the buyers of thqlr products
and with nther industries?
n
Let ws, then, consider gome of the
farmer's grievances, and see how far
they are real. In doing so, we should
remember that, while there have been,
and still are, instances of purposeful
abuse, the subject should not be approached
with any general imputation
to existing distributive agencies of deliberately
intentional ^oppression, but
rather with the conception that the
marketing of farm products has not
been modernized.
An ancient evil, and a persistent
one, is the undergrading of farm prod
A? ? ?-*- -4-1 U i.vn* fkn
lie 13, Willi tilt: resun uiat wuai mc
farmers sell as of one quality Is resold
as of a higher. That this sort of
chicanery should persist on any important
scale in these days of business
integrity would seem almost incredible,
but there is much evidence
that It does so persist Even as I
write, the newspapers announce the
suspension of several firms from the
New York Produce Exchange for exporting
to Germany as No. 2 wheat a
whole shipload of grossly inferior wheat
mixed with oats, chaff and the like.
\ Another1 evil is that of inaccurate
weighing of farm products, which, it
is charged, is sometimes a matter of
dishonest intention and sometimes of
protective policy on tie part of the
local buyer, who fears that he may
tV>A*i v* A i'moirrkfl it* "
WClgll UUL U1V1C Uiau UV n Clguc lu.
A greater grievance is that at present
the field farmer has little or no
control over the time and conditions
of marketing his products, with the
result that he is often underpaid for
his products and usually overcharged
for marketing service. The difference
between what the farmer receives
and what the consumer pays
often exceeds all possibility of justlTn
rita a sinelo illustration.
Last year, according to figures attested
by the railways and the growers,
Georgia watermelon-raisers received
on the average 7.5 cents for a melon,
the railroads got 12.7 cents for carrying
it to Baltimore and the consumer
paid one dollar, leaving 79.8 cents for
the service of marketing and its risks,
as against 20.2 cents for growing and
transporting. The hard annals of
farm-life are replete with such commentaries
on the crudeness of pres
ent practices.
Nature prescribes that the farmer's
"goods" must be finished within two
or three months of the year, while
financial and storage limitations generally
compel him to sell them at the
same time. As a rule, other industries
are in a continuous process of finishing
goods for the markets; they distribute
as they produce, and they can
curtail production without too great
injury to themselves or the community;
but if the farmer restricts his
output, It Is with disastrous consequences,
both to himself and to the
community.
The average iarmer is Dusy wnn
production for the major part of the
year, and has nothing to selL The
bulk of his output comes on the market
at once. Because of lack of storage
facilities and of financial support,
the farmer cannot carry his goods
through the year and dispose of them
as they are currently needed. In the
great majority of cases, farmers have
to entrust storage?In warehouses and
elevators?and the financial carrying
of their products to others.
Farm products are generally mar
Keiea at a time wlieu uiere is a congestion
of both transportation and
finance?when cars and money are
scai ?e. The outcome, in many instances,
is that the farmers not oniy
sell under pressure, and therefore at
a disadvantage, but are compelled to
take further reductions in net returns,
In order to meet the charges for the
service of storing, transporting, financing,
and ultimate marketing?which
charges they claim, are often excessive,
bear heavily on both consumer
and producer, and are under the control
of those performing the services
It Is true that they are relieved of
j the risks of a changing market by <
' selling at once; but they are quite *111
lng to take the unfavorable chance,
if the favorable one also Is theirs and
they can retain for themselves a part
of the service charges that are uniform,
in good years and bad, with
high prices and low.
While, in the main, the farmer must
sell, regardless of market conditions,
at the time of the maturity of crops,
he cannot suspend production in toto.
He must go on producing if he is to go
on living, and if the world is to exist.
The most he can do is to curtail production
a little or alter its form, and
I - 1 I- <1- i.L. J 1. A. _
mat?oecause ne is m me uan*. as iu
the probable demand for his goods?
may be only to jump from the frying
pan into the Are, taking the consumer
with him.
Even the dairy farmers, whose output
is not seasonal, complain that they
find themselves at a disadvantage In
the marketing of their productions,
especially raw milk, because of the
high costs of distribution, which they
must ultimately bear.
ra
Now that the farmers are stirring,
thinking, and uniting as never before
to eradicate these Inequalities, they
are subjected to stern economic lectures,
and are met with the accusation
that they are demanding, and are the
recipients of, special privileges. Let
us see what privileges the government
has conferred on the farmers. Much
has been made of Section 6 of the
Clayton Anti-Trust Act, which purported
to permit them to combine with
Immnnifr nnHor /?Ortflin Conditions.
iUiUi UUtWj | VIMUVk V
Admitting that, nominally, this exemption
was in the nature of a special
privilege,?though I think it was so in
appearance rather than in fact,?we
find that the courts have nullified it
by Judicial interpretation. Why shoukl
not the farmers be permitted to accomplish
by co-operative methods what
other businesses are already doing by
co-operation in the form of incorporation?
If it be proper for men to form,
by fusion of existing corporations or
otherwise, a corporation that controls
the entire production of a commodity,
or a large part of it, why is it not
proper for a group of farmers to unite
for the marketing of their common
products, either in one or in several
selling agencies? Why should it be
right for a hundred thousand corporate
shareholders to direct 25 or 30 or 40
per cent of an industry, and wrong for
a hundrec thousand co-operative
farmers to control a no larger proportion
of the wheat crop, or cotton, or
any other product?
The Department of Agriculture is
often spoken of as a special concession
to the farmers, but in its commercial
results, it Is of as much benefit to the
buyers and consumers of agricultural
products as to the producers, or even
more. I do not suppose tnat anyone
opposes the benefits that the farmers
derive from the educational and research
work of the department, or the
help that It gives them In working out
Improved cultural methods and practices,
In developing better yielding varieties
through breeding and selection,
In Introducing new varieties from remote
parts of the world and adapting
them to our climate and economic condition,
and In devising practical measures
for the elimination or control of
dangerous and destructive animal and
plant diseases, insect pests, and the
like. All these things manifestly tend
to stimulate and enlarge proaucuon,
and their general beneficial effects are
obvious.
It is complained that, whereas the
law restricts Federal Reserve banks
to three months' time for commercial'
paper, the farmer is allowed six
months on his notes. This is not a
special privilege, hot merely such a
recognition of business conditions as
makes it possible for country banks
to do business with country people.
The crop farmer has only one turnover
a year, while the merchant and
manufacturer have many. Incidentally,
I note that the Federal Reserve
Board has just authorized the Federal
Reserve banks to discount export
? a nArtari rrf sir months, to
ya^ci mi u y ? ?
conform to the nature of the business.
The Farm Loan banks are pointed
to as an instance of special government
favor for farmers. Are they not
rather the outcome of laudable efforts
to equalize rural and urban conditions?
And about all the government
does there is to help set up an administrative
organisation and lend a
little credit at the start Eventually
the farmers will provide all the capital
and carry all the liabilities themselves.
It is true that Farm Loan
bonds are tax exempt; but so are
bonds of municipal light and traction
plants, and new housing is to be exempt
from taxation, in New York, for
ten years.
On the other hand, the farmer reads
of plans for municipal housing projects
that run into the billions, of hundreds
of millions annually spent on
the merchant marine; he reads that
the railways are being favored with
increased rates and virtual guaranties
of earnings by the government, with
the result to him of an 'ncreased toll
on all that he sells and all that he
buys. He hears or many manuesuitions
of governmental concern for par
ticular Industries and Interests. Re*
I cuing the railways from Insolvency Is
undoubtedly for the benefit of the
country as a whole, but what can be
of more general benefit than encouragement
of ample production of the
. -i ? i .Annc.Mi.iat. r\f 1 ifo gnr) thoir
principal uciwoanco vj.
even flow from contented proaucers to
satisfied consumers?
While it may be conceded that
special governmental aid may be necessary
in the general interest, we must j
all agree that It is difficult to see why j
agriculture and the production and dis
trlbution of farm products are not ac- i
corded the same opportunities that are
provided for other businesses; espe
dally a? <he enjoyment by the farmer j
of such opportunities would appear to j
be eveD more contributory to the gen- :
era! good than in the case of other
Industries. The spirit of American
democracy Is unalterably opposed,
alike to enacted special privilege and
to the special privilege of unequal opportunity
that arises automatically
from the failure to correct glaring
economic inequalities. I am ODt>osed
to the Injection of government Into
business, but I do believe that It is an
essential function of democratic government
to equalize opportunity so
far ;.? it is within its power to do so,
wl er by the repeal of archaic
sta . 8s or the enactment of modern
ones. If the anti-trust lawg keep the
farmers from endeavoring scientifically
to Integrate their industry while other
industries find a way to meet modern
conditions without violating such statutes,
then it would seem reasonable
to find a way for the farmers to meet
them under the same conditions. Tne
law should operate equally in fact. Repairing
the economic structure on one
side is no injustice to the other side,
which Is in good repair.
We have traveled a long way from
the old conception of government as
merely a defensive and policing agency;
and regulative, corrective, or equalizing
legislation, which apparently is of
a special nature, is often of the most
general beneficial consequences. Even
the First Congress passed a tariff act
that was avowedly for the protection
of manufacturers; but a protective
tariff always has been defended as a
means of promoting the general good
through a particular approach; and
the statute books are filled with acts
for the benefit of shipping, commerce,
and labor.
ry
Now, what Is the farmer asking?
Without trying to catalogue the remedial
measures that have been suggested
in his behalf, the principal proposals
that bear directly on the improvement
of his distributing and marketing
relations may be summarized as
ronows:?
First: storage warehouses for cotton,
wool, and tobacco, and elevators
for grain, of sufficient capacity to meet
the maximum demand on them at the
peak of the marketing period. The
farmer thinks that either private capital
must furnish these facilities, or the
state must erect and own the elevators
and warehouses.
Second: weighing and grading of
agricultural products, and certification
thorpof tn hp dnnp hv impartial and
disinterested public inspectors (this is
already accomplished to some extent
by the federal licensing of weighers
and graders), to eliminate underpaying,
overcharging, and unfair grading,
and to facilitate the utilization of the
stored products as the basis of credit.
Third: a certainty of credit sufficient
to enable the marketing of products
in an "orderly manner.
Fourth: the Department of Agriculture
should collect, tabulate, summarize,
and regularly and frequently publish
and distribute to the farmers, full
information from all the markets of
the world, so that they shall be as well
informed of their selling position as
buyers now are of their buying position.
Fifth: freedom to integrate the business
of agriculture by means of consolidated
selling agencies, co-ordinating
and co-operating in such way as to
put the farmer on an equal footing
with the#large buyers of his products,
and with commercial relations In other
Industries.
When a business requires specialized
talent, it has to buy It. So will the
farmers; and perhaps the best way for
them to get it woul^ be to utilize some
of the present machinery of the largest
established agencies dealing in
farm products. Of course, if he wishes,
the farmer may go further and engage
In flour-milling and other manufactures
of food products. In my opinion,
*- ? rrrrviilA Ko ttrloa fn CjfrkT\
Qiwevei, 11C HUU1U uv moc wu oiv{/
short of that. Public Interest may be
opposed to all great integrations; but,
In justice, should they be forbidden to
the farmer and permitted to others?
The corporate form of association cannot
now be wholly adapted to his objects
and conditions. The looser cooperative
form seems more generally
suitable. Therefore, he wishes to be
free, if he finds it desirable and teas
* i- ? ? ?iui
lDie, to reson iu cu-upex aitu^ wuu uijt
fellows and neighbors, without running
afoul of the law. To urge that
the farmers should have the same liberty
to consolidate and co-ordinate
their peculiar economic functions,
which other industries in their fields
enjoy, is not, however, to concede that
any business integration should have
legislative sanction to exercise monopolistic
power. The American people
are as firmly opposed to Industrial as
to political autocracy, whether attempted
by rural or by urban industry.
For lack of united effort the farmers
as a whole are still marketing their
crops by antiquated methods, or by no
methods at all, but they are surrounded
by a business world that has been
modernized to the last minute and Is
tirelessly striving for efficiency. This
efficiency is due in large measure to
big business, to united business, to Integrated
business. The farmers now
seek the benefits of such largeness, union
and integration.
The American farmer is a modern of
the moderns in the use of labor saving
machinery, and he has made vast
strides in receDt years in scientific
tillage and efficient farm management,
but as a business in contact with other
businesses agirculture is a "one horse 1
shay" in competition with high power
automobiles. The American farmer is
the greatest and most intractable of
individualists. While industrial production
and all phases of the huge com
mercial mechanism and its ?yriad accessories
have articulated and co-ordinated
themselves all the way from natural
raw materials to retail sales, the
business o? agriculture has gone on In
raucu t' z One man fashion of the backwoods
of the first, part of the ninetieth
century, when the farmer wai
self sufficient and did not depend upon,
or care very much, what the great
world was doing. The result is that
the agricultural group is almost as
much at a disadvantage in dealing with
other economic groups as the Jay farmer
of the funny pages in the hands of
sleek urban confidence men. who sell J
him acreage in Central Park or the
Chicago city hall. The leaders of the
farmers thoroughly understand this,
and they are intelligently striving to
Integrate their industry so that it will
be on an equal footing with other businesses.
As an example of integration, take
the steel Industry, In which the model
is the United States Steel Corporation,
with its iron mines, its coal mines, its
lake and rail transportation, its ocean
vessels, Its by-product coke ovens, its
blast furnaces, its open hearth and
Bessemer furnaces, its rolling mills, its
tube mills and otner manufacturing
processes that are carried to the high- |
est degree of finished production compatible
with the large trade it has
built up. All this is generally conced- j
ed to be to the advantage of the consumer.
Nor does the steel corporation
Inconsiderately dump its products on
the market. On the contrary, it so
acts that it is frequently a stabilizing
Influence, as is often the case with oth- [
er large organizations. It is master of
Its distribution as well as of Its production.
If prices are not satisfactory
the products are held back or production
is reduced or suspended. It Is not
compelled to send a year's work to the
market at one time and take whatever
it can get under such circumstances.
It has one selling policy and its own
export department. Neither are the
grades and qualities of steel determined
at the caprice of the buyer, nor does
the latter hold the scales. In this single
Integration of the steel corporation
Is represented about 40 per cent of the
steel production of America. The rest
Is mostly In the hands of a few large
companies. In ordinary times the
steel corporation, by example, stabilizes
all steel prices. If this is permissible
(it is even desirable, because stable
and fair prices are essential to solid
and continued prosperity) why would
it be wrong for the farmers to utilize
central agencies that would have similar
effects on agricultural products?
Something like that is what they are
aiming at.
Some farmers favored by regional
compactness and contiguity, such as the
citrus-fruit-raisers of California, already
have found a way legally to
merge and sell their products integrally
and in accordance with seasonal
and local demand, thus Improving
their position and rendering the consumer
a reliable service of ensured
quality, certain supply, and reasonable
and relatively steady prices. They
have not found it necessary to resort
to any special privilege, or to claim
any exemption under the anti-trust
legislation of the state or nation. Without
removing local control, they have
built up a very efficient marketing
agency. The grain, cotton, and tobacco
farmers, and the producers of
hides and wool, because of their numbers
and the vastness of their regions,
and for other reasons, have found
integration a more difficult task;
though there are now some thousands
of farmer's co-operative elevators,
warehouses, creameries, and other enterprises
of one sort and another, with
a fnm.nvAr nt a hllll-on d oiler.. a year.
They are giving the farmers business
experience and training, and, so far
as they go, they meet the need of
honest weighing and fair grading; but
they do not meet the requirements of
rationally adjusted marketing in any
large and fundamental way.
The next step, which will be a pattern
for other groups, is now being
prepared by the grain-raisers through
the establishment of sales media which
shall handle grain separately or collectively,
as the individual farmer may
elect. It is this step?the plan of the
Committee of Seventeen?which has
created so much oppositiop and Is
thought by some to be In conflict with
ifiwc Though then* Is
111C flUU-^UMV AM " w. _
now before congress a measure designed
to clear up doubt on this point,
the grain-producers are not relying on
any immunity from anti-trust legislation.
They desire, and they are entitled,
to co-ordinate their efforts just
as effectively as the large business Interests
of tiie country have done. In
connection with the selling organizations
the United States Grain Growers
Incorporated is drafting a scheme of
financing instrumentalities and auxili
ui.
ary agencies wnicn are luuiayeusntuie
to the successful utilization of modern
business methods.
It is essential that the farmers
should proceed gradually with these
plans, and aim to avoid the error of
scrapping the existing marketing machinery,
which has been so laboriously
built up by long experience, before
they have a tried and proved substitute
or supplementary mechanism.
They must be careful not to become
enmeshed in their own reforms and
lose the perspective of their place In
the national system. They must guard
o<rainfanatical devotion to new doc
?
trines, and should seek articulation
with the general economic system
rather than.Its reckless destruction as
it relates to them.
y
To take a tolerant and sympathetic
view of the farmers' strivings for better
things 13 not to give a blanket
endorsement to any specific plan, and
still less to applaud the vagaries of
some of their leaders and groups.
Neither should we, on the other hand,
allow the troth or Diuer aauauun,
false economics, and mistaken radicalism
to conceal the facts of the farmers'
disadvantages, and the practicability
of eliminating them by well-considered
measures. It may be tha: the
farmers will not show the business
sagac't; anu develop the wise leadership
to carry through sound plans; but
that possibility does not justify the
abstraction of their upward effort*
We, as city people, see In high and
speculatively manipulated price*
spoilage, waste, scarcity, the result! *
of defective distribution of farm prodacts.
Should it not occur to us that*
we have a common interest with the
farmer in his attempts to attain a degree
of efficiency in distribution cor- *
responding to his efficiency in producfi/NM
O T\ 1. a i.1
tiuu: uu ooi ine recent nucruauons
In the May wheat option, apparently
unrelated to normal Interaction ot
supply and demand, offer a timely
proof of the need of some such stabilizing
agency as the grain growers have *
In contemplation?
It Is contended that, If their pro- \
posed organizations be perfected and
operated, the farmers will have In
their hands an instrument that will be <
capable of dangerous abuse. We are
told that it will be possible to pervert *
it to arbitrary and oppressive pricefixing
from Its legitimate use of ordering
and stabilizing the flow of farm " \
products to the market, to the mutuai
benefit of producer and consumer. I
have no apprehensions on this point
In the first place, a loose organization,
such as any union of farmers
must be at best, cannot be so arbitrarily
and promptly controlled as a K ;
great corporation. The one Is a lumbering
democracy and the other an agile
autocracy. In the second place, witn
all possible power of organization, the
farmers cannot succeed to any great
extent, or for any considerable length \.
of time, In firing prices. The great
law of supply and demand works Invarious
and surprising ways, to the
undoing of the best laid plans that
attempt to foil it In the third place, *
their power will avail the farmeni
nothing if it be abused. In our time
and country power Is of value to its
possessor only so long as It is not
abused. It is fair to say that I have ^
seen no signs in responsible quarters
of a disposition to dictate prices.
There seems, on the contrary, to be a
commonly beneficial purpose to realize
a stability that will givo an orderly
and abundant flow of farm products
to the consumer and ensure reasonable *r'and
dependable returns to the producer.
?
In view otf the supreme Importance '
to the national well-being of a prosperous
dnd contented agricultural population,
we should be prepared to go
a long way in assisting the farmers to
get an equitable share of the wealth
they produce, through the inauguration
of reforms that will procure a ^
continuous and increasing stream of
farm products. They are far from getting
a fair share now. Considering
his capital and the long hours of labor
put in by the average farmer and Ms
family, he is remunerated less, than
any other occupational class, with the
possible exception of teachers, religious
and lay. Though we know that
the Dresent general distress of the
farmers is exceptional and is linked
with the inevitable economic readjust- ~ . i
ment following the war, it must be
remembered that, although representing
one-third of the industrial product
and half the total population of the v
nation, the rural communities ordinarily
enjoy but a fifth to a quarter of 1
the net annual national gain. Notwithstanding
the taste of prosperity that
| tne rarmers naa aunng uie war, uicic
I is today a lower standard of living
am ng the cotton farmers of the South
tha^i In any other pursuit In the country.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the A
farmers are chiefly striving for a generally
beneficial Integration of their
business, of the same kind and character
that other business enjoys. If it
should be found on examination that
the attainment of this end.requires \
methods different from those which
, other activities have followed for the
same purpose should we not sympathetically
consider the plea for the ^ |
right to co-operate, if only from our v
own enlightened self interest, in obtaining
an abundant and steady flow of
LB.1LU pi vuuvvw *
In examining the agricultural situa- |
tlon with a view to Ita Improvement; *1
we shall be most helpful if we main* J
tain a detached and judicial viewpoint,
remembering that existing wrongs may Jj
be chiefly an accident of unsymmetrl- %
cal economic growth instead of a creation
of malevolent design and conspiracy.
We Americans are prone, as Professor
David Friday well says In his
admirable book, "Profits, Wages and
Prices," to seek a "criminal Intent be- Jj
hind every difficult and undesirable economic
situation.* I can positively as- -jE
ooH- from mv contact with men of
large affairs, including bankers, that 1
as a whole, they are endeavoring to
fulfill as they see them the obligations f
that go with their power. Preoccupied
with the grave problems and heavy VI
tasks of their own Immediate affairs^
the^ have not turned their thoughtful,
personal attention or their construe *
tive abilities to the deficiencies of agricultural
business organisation. Agriculture,
it may be said, suffers from * Jj
their preoccupation and neglect rather
than from any purposeful exploitation j
ktt thpm Thev ought now to begin to
UJ - _
respond to the farmers' difficulties,
which they must realize are their own.
On the other hand, my contacts with
the farmers have filled me with respect
' for them?for their sanity, their pa*
| tience, their balance. Within the last
j year, and particularly at a meeting
called by the Kansas State Board of
I Agriculture and at another called by * jj
| the Committee of Seventeen, I have
met many 01 uie icauci O ui U1 c UCIT _
farm movement, and I testify in all ' M
sincerity that they are endeavoring to
deal with their problems, not as pro- - 9
moters of a narrow class Interest, not '
as exploiters of the hapless consumer
not as merciless monopolists, but as
*' * ~f-h* !mnrnv#>mpnt ,
nontrsi mcui uw ?- ?t
of the common weal.
We can and must meet such men
and -:u.h a cause half way. Their ifl
I business Is ovx business--the nation's flj
? \
' . ~
.-3
. X ' ' y. ^ 3