The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, January 20, 1916, Page 4

sttt A e AN P O .1t costs $7,000,000,000 to. distribute “looking toward its solution. FOUR gulate, with some degree of satis- faction, the cempensation . that co- operating agencies shall receive as their legitimate share in the distr:- bution of farm products. On the -other hand, so long as farmers con- tinue to act individually, the auxili- ary cooperating agencies referred to have the power to appropriate among themselves all that the traf- fic will stand. In other words, farm- ers often must take for their pro- ducts what a manipulated or specu- lative market offers, without any re- gard for the law of supply and de- mand. For as long as the ‘captains or . industry’, have the power to fix their own compensation for service rend- ered, they will be generous to them- selves and appropriate for their own use a part of the farmer’s share that is out of all proportion to the ser- viceg they render. - Future Development The future development of these northwestern states depends more upon the farming population than all else. Cities will grow and busi- ness will prosper only in proportion as the vacant lands are occupied by actual settlers and the soil in gener- al is cultivated with- skill and en- thusiasm. It is safe to assume, how- ever, that the soil will not be en- thusiastically cultivated. -exgept it can be done with certainty of profit. Anqd further, systematic cooperation alone will, in my opinion, insure stable profits for the tillers of the soil. For as long as producers are at the mercy of distributors the farmers’ profits, if any, = will be a matter of indulgence rather than the result of ‘their 6wn labor, fore- sight and business sagacity. The Main Question. But how shall this regulation of .prices be accomplished? Who will undertake the ask?"~ "~ Without guestion the problem as- sumes such tremendous proportions that farmers are bewildered when they contemplate its solution. Its very magnitude appalls them, and well it ‘may, for hitherto the distre- -_bution of farm products, the annual -value of which runs far up into the Jbillions of dollars, has been, by com- mon practice, entrusted to commer- cial organizations of which farmers have but little definite - knowledge and nop relationship whatever. It would be unfair to human na- ture in this era of money madness to assume that the largest possible ‘tribute would not be levied ‘against " the products of the zoil while on their devious journey from the pro- ducer to the consumer. Some Startling Figures. President Yoakum of the Soutn- "ern Pacific railway . system “asserts that the consmmers pay $13,000,- 000,000 for what the producers re- ceive $6,000,000,000. In other words $6,000,000,000 worth of farm pro- ducts. We know who receives the $6,000,0600,000, but who gets the larger sum, the $7,000,000,000? Is it fairly - earned and for - services ac- tually necessary and economically rendered? These figures represent the pre- sent system . of -distribution, - whicn must either he amended or suffered. to continue. It would be folly, how- . ever, to expect-the originators-of the present system, voluntarily, to im- prove it. Their interests do not lie in that direction. If improvement is made, therefore, it must come thru the .efforts .of the -producers themselves, moved by the same self- _ish impulse for profit-making that originated the present system,Farm- ers, however, by employing and di- . Tecting more economic methods of distribution may hope to enjoy their legitimate share of the profits that arise from the business of agricul- ture. © The problem of getting bet- _ter conditions for the farmer, there- fore,"is ene for the farmers- to ‘work out. " It is their.fight. Big Business. Some of the -methods employed by -big. business, socalled, may help to solve the farmers’ problem. Big ‘businesg ayoids waste; it makes pro- fitable uge of all the by-products; it demands ‘efficiency in every depart- ‘ment, These are some of the econom- ic lessons farmers have yet to learn. _ Parming itself is big business. ‘Collectively it is the ‘biggest busi- ‘ness under the American flag. OQur farm products amount to $10,000,- 000,000 annually, in the raw state, and vastly more when made ready for consumption. These figures indi- “cate the magnitude of the market- ing problem, and little wonder that farmers are so appalled by its im- ‘mensity that hitherto they ‘have ‘made ‘but- little systematic effort The question of marketing, how-- wever, has been agitated to a consla- ~erable -extent by such organizations -@a8 the Grange and Society of Hqut--character, ty, ‘but’ thus far the ,constructive T LM “THE NONPARTISAN LEADER work that has been accomplished only gives promise, let us hope, of & satisfactory answer. The very fact that agitation exists and dissatisfaction prevails, leads us to the belief that a positive remedy is demanded and will not down un- til a satisfactory system of market- ing is established. The remedy, however, must not be a mere palliative. It must go_to, tife heart of the problem and slough off every parasitical and speculative interest until the producer is assur- ed the full value of his product, ess a reasonable remuneration for sucn middlemen’s service as are actually required and efficiently rendered. Farmrs Must Stick Together, To make progress, moreover, farmers must stick together. The general belief prevails, however, that farmers will not stick together. Farmers themselves have come to believe this fallacy. This is not at all surprising since* this doctrine has been most vigor- ously promulgated by these inter- ests, political and otherwise, which are ‘best served by cultivating indi- vidualistic instead of cooperative effort among farmers. - This doc-~ trine has been so thoroly dissemin- ated, and for a purpose, that farm- ers generally have come to accept it as a fact. It is time, however, that farmers disprove this assump- tion and mend their ways, else they will eventually peasantize themselves and their children. Farmers Must Organize. by Farmers, therefore, must organ- ize. Before any substantial pro- gress can be made to remedy the evils farmers .complain of, they must learn to stand together -as ome man’ wherever their particular interests are involved. Until this fact is settl- ed beyond question, no permanent progress can 'be made.: Farmers’ organizations, however, do nat necessarily result in creating class .consciousness, class spirit or class prejudice, as some pretend to fear. Certainly not more so than bankers, editors, barhers, merchants, labor organizations or capitalistic organizations in general, create class prejudice. D When tal;mers hint, therefore, at organizing for the purpose .of man- aging their own business, or even choosing from their own ranks con- gressmen, governors or legislators somewhat in propertion to their vet- ing strength and vested interests, 1t comes with poer grace fo¥ .certain other iinterests .and professions to criticise, since they themselves havs effctually monopolized the offices in county, state and nation for Io! so many years that they have come to look upon office-holding as theirs by divine right. Begin at Washington. I am of the opinion, that even-. ~handed justice will not be attained ~by-the producers of agricultural wealth until they begin at Washing- ton, D. C., and choose lawmakers having the farmers’ viewpoint ans in numbers somewhat in proportion to the agricultural population and agricultural investment. The same rule should ©be followed in the states. Referring to the Congressional Directory for 1915 as a case in point, we find that the U. S. Senate is composed of 74 lawyers, three farmers, and 19 from other voca- tions. The House of Representa- tives is composed of not less than 275 lawyers, 16 farmers, with the balance divided among other vocations, such as bankers, journalists, doctors, anc manufacturers. This inequitabie distribution of political power doubt~ less accounts for many of the eco- nomie evils farmers - and laberers complain of. Against the argument that farm- ers are -inexperienced in statecrar:z and hence not qualified to make ana execute the laws ef the country .or the commonwealth, it must e con- ceded from the complexion of Con- gress as just indicated, that greax care ‘has been exercised hitherto by political bosses that farmers shoule zet but little practice in statecraft. It may be safely presumed, however. that farmer lawmakers would not prove harmful to the state or na- tion. On the other hand they would by virtue of their large vested in- tevests, and combining by vocation the functions of both laborer and capitglists. they doubtless: would prove anything but recreant to the general welfare ‘or subservient to mercenary canitalistic influences. Being simple folk. moreover, they might at least contrive to thake laws bed that wonld say what they mean and mean what they'sav, and thus elimi- nate much of the lucrative business of litigation that now afflicts tne country. : e Having such tremendous financial ‘Interests of the ‘most substantial farmers could ‘be relied upon to. be conservative, just and sensible. A ) Being permanent investors to the extent of more than $45.000.000,0_00 in land, livestock and farm. equip- ment, and augmenting the national wealth by $10,000,000,000 annual- 1y, they doubtless could be.trustgd with -equitable prepresentation in Congress and in state legislatures, without at present raising the ques- tion further at this time as to why they are not so represented. . Cooperation. But what is the remedy? In my opinion the answer can be summex up in one word: Cooperation. Not cooperation in a small or sectiona: way as in> the management of' .a creamery or a farmers’ elevator, tho such cooprations are highly eom- mendable, but these should serve only as units of a larger state or nationwide cooperation. For stand- ing alone the unfederated orgamniza- tions can be dominated by monopol- istic interests with little more dif-* ficulty than individual farmers.-Anx farmers’ clubs and organizations, therefore, should be federated, for only thus can they hope. to- make their influence felt. To assume the role of “big busi- ness.” however, and to this.farm- ing ‘must come if it would held its own with organized big business —agriculture must not only produce the raw material, but also to a large extent -regulate the manufacture.and distribution of the finished product. This indicates at once the magnitude of the farmer’s problem and the Jeason why it remains a problem. Some Problems Corsidered Let“us for a moment consider some of these-problems. The three states here represented are large producers of wheat, to say nothing of other cereals and livestock. Owing to favorable soil and climatic- condi- tions, this region enjoys a: natural monopoly of the best milling wheat that can be produced ‘in the United States. This wheat should find a market strictly-on its merits. Cooperative local and cooperative terminal elevators, thereforé, should be .established and -operated by farm- ers, or under the direction of farm- ers, to dispose of :their grain in the world's markets, without the inter- vention of speculative gamblers or ‘needless: middlemen. Against this proposition ne logical a'rgumept can be sustained. will be tremendous loss. For by this method -of .marketing much of the byproducts cannot be effectually utilized. fawr; _profits. It would be a tremendous advance over present ‘methods, however, yet only a step in the right direction. i Manufacture of Flour. Only by manufacturing the wheat into flour, ‘within the state, can sat- isfactory grades be guaranteed and all the byproducts converted into profits. e T The first objection to this colossal scheme is lack of .capital. If farmers are receiving for their wheat an average- of ten cents per bushel less than the market war- rants, on account-of market manipu- lations, as farmers generally con- tend, then they are warranted in making strenuous efforts to correct the evil. If their contentions are based upon fact, then an investment of ten cents per bushel for each bushel raised made by the farmers of the state and this money capitalized in the form of milling stock, upon which they could expect dividends. ; On the 'basis of an average 100,000,000 bushel wheat crop for North Dakota, a capital fund of $10,000,0600 would thus he raised in one year, or $50,000,000 in five years that could be used for ‘the erection and equinment of flour *ills, elevators, and other accessor- ies for independently marketing the manufactured, instead of the raw, product of our wheat fields. Moreover, I shall presently dem- onstrate that the byproducts, ommercial value 9.2 r lost of given away, are worth more B eanan Talle. o 320.27. 000 d every single year than all the necessary to convert our wheat into flour would cost. On the other hand; unless farmers put into execy tion some such plan as here outline by their own- contention they Jose ten cents a bushel every yea at any rate. : ) With i mi .the simple question whether it wouid: o ot JEdpming ShoRoixes be better to invest ten cents per bushel for the purpose indicated and be thereafter independent or be rob- ed of ten cents per bushel every year and take it out in kicking. ' . The second objection is that flour cannot be manufactured as economi- cally here as in Minneapolis and in ‘other ‘eastern ‘eities. eSS It there "were no local compensa- jection would: have con- siderable ‘weight. But . ‘there are Some very important compensations But even then there. could profitably be’ T $22.373,088, to which I shall presently allude. Some Positive Advantages. For the sake of argument I shall confine my observations to North Da- kota. This state should ‘produce for ex- port, annually, 100,000,000 bushels of wheat. This hard wheat is 80 rich in gluten content that by mix- ing it with the softer southern grown wheats, by eastern millers, a super- ior grade of flour is manufactured. This mixing process evidently is of great pecuniary advantage ' to the elevator combines and eastern mil}- ing interests, but manifestly unfair to the farmers of the northwest. On the other hand North Dakota hard ‘wheat converted into flour, unmixed with wheats of inferior grade, shou!d make a brand of flour that would command: such a premium in. the best flour markets as would very largely make up the difference in cost of manufacture. Moreover, our vast lignite coal depgsits could be utilized for fur- Tishing. cheap power, not only at the mines, but electrical energy could be developed at the mines and trans- mitted long distances by wire, for operating mills. This cheap power would go a long way toward cheap- ening the manufacture of flour— possibly it would completely offset the advantages claimed for eastern mills. The By-Products. Then there are the byproducts to be taken into consideration. Dockage is an important item. From 1907 to the close of 1914, Pro- fessor Ladd tested 652 samples at the college mill, representing all classes and grades of wheat. This wheat was sent in by farmers for the purpose of determining the loss in cleaning. The loss ranged from nothing to 38 per cent; the average being 3.99 per cent. On a 100,000,000 bushel crop the dockage would be 119,700 tons. For this the farmers receive nothing and actually pay the freight on it to the terminal market, after paying for threshing and hauling it to the local elevator. This dockage is ground up and sold for stock feed at about twenty dollars per ton, amounting to ap- proximately $2,394,000. : Bran also is an important item. For the same period Professor Ladd tested 649 samples of wheat, repre- senting all grades, and found an average of 12.7 per cent. ) On a 100,000,000 bushel crop this would represent 381,800 tons, which, at $20 per ton represents a value of $7,626,000. From 652 samples of wheat, Pro- fessor Ladd found an average of 15.15 per cent of shorts, represent- ing 454,500 tons, which at $22.00 per ton represents a value of $9,999,000. The total value of the three by- products; viz., dockage, bran and shorts, which our farmers usually send away and pay the freight on besides, have a commercial value of not less than $20,019.000. All these byproducts should be re- tained in the state and fed to live- stock. The profit derived from feed- ing the same would not. be less than 25 per cent on its value, which would add to our farmers’ income, as prev- iously estimated, $5,000,000. The freight also must _be taken into :account. The 955,500 tons of byproducts under consideration, at an average carrying charge of $3.35 per tonm, amounts to $3,200,000. Manural Value. But this is not all. Allowing one and one quarter tons to the animal, these byproducts would . support, annually, 754,400 adult cattle, or other livestock in proportion. The roughage these cattle would need in addition, such as alfalfa, clover and corn, could be grown to advantage, for the improvement of the ‘soil. The value of the manure these ani- mals would make, according to ex- periments conducted by the Cornell University Experiment Station, has ‘animal, or eight cents per day. " The value of this manure, accord- ing to the figures quoted, would ap- .proximately annually the The farms of the state need this ;amount of manure every single year ‘to maintain the fertility of the soil. itself into a mining proposition—mining out its fertility and selling, at a tre- mendous discount, the heritage of our ‘children. ‘The future ‘wealth of this state, depends upon the amount ‘of manure that present day farmers ‘apply: to the soil.” | ! i - Livestock, therefore, is an essen- tidl to continued agricultural ‘pros- perity as sunshine or moisture. fd © The following table, therefor -represents approximately the adw: ‘tages that might “be' derived from © (Continued on page 13) sum of