The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, May 17, 1917, Page 5

Dredging San Francisco bay. These .operations will result in reclaiming hundreds of acres of tidelands upon which it is planned to have public owned elevators, cold storage plants and warehouses built. But at San Francisco the state has built a railroad skirting the harbor, called the Belt line, connecting all the publicly owned utilities and the various transcontinental railroad terminals in the city. It is thus im- possible for railroads to overcharge shippers in switching from one rail- road to another or from one public wharf or warehouse to another. BIG AND LITTLE SHIPPERS GET SAME TREATMENT The state-owned railroad at San Francisco makes a nominal charge, sufficient to cover cost of operation, for switching cars of any railroad or shipper, be it a big corporation or small individual shipper. The charge is the same to all. The port commis- sion at Seattle has such a railroad under consideration there and realizes that until it is built the publicly owned projects that are breaking the private terminal monopoly on Puget Sound can not be a complete success. - The public terminals at San Fran- cisco are operated on the policy that service for the public is to be perform- -ed at absolute cost. The state legis- lature decreed that charges for service must not be higher than necessary to raise annually sufficient money to pay operating expenses, interest on the bonds and retire the annual install- ments of bonds coming due. Thus the charges to shippers and others using the various public utilities are exceed- ingly low. The San Francisco state- owned and operated port facilities were in fact so low that the port has en-~ Joyed the biggest .business on the Pacific coast of the two Americas, making it necessary for Seattle and other Yacific ports to follow suit and adopt a plan of publicly owned port facilities to keep pace with the city by the Golden Gate. OAKLAND DEVELOPS ITS OWN PORT FACILITIES Across the bay from San Francisco, Oakland, also under a publicly owned port plan, is fast becoming a formid- able rival of the older and better known city. Oakland, whether wisely or not, preferred to develop its termi- nal facilities itself, instead of doing it under state ownership. « So the state of California transferred to the city of -Oakland the rights in and authority over the water front, and Oakland, San Francisco’s famous F'erry termi- nal. Only the central portion of the -building and tower is shown in this’ picture. This terminal is operated by the state. Its terminal facilities pros duce nearly‘ $2,000,000 a year. through big bond issues, is fast build- ing complete terminal facilities. Back in the early days a few specu- lators who thought that the state con- stitution did not mean what it says, or were willing to take a chance on it, grabbed most of the available water front at Oakland. Some they got by trading interior land for it, through the acquiescence of agreeable public officials. Later they sold this water front, in which they really had no right at all under the constitution, to rail- roads for terminals, at a big profit to themselves. The railroads also were willing to take a chance on the con- stitution of the state, which stated that the water front was the people's forever and could not be sold or given away. They figured that if they erected great and costly terminals on this public land and the state delayed a few years in bringing suits to eject them, they could come into court with pleas that, by their undisturbed occupation of the public land, they had acquired owner- ship. Then they could make a great holler .about “confiscation of property” and show that “business would be paralyzed” and the sun fail to rise if they were driven off of what was not theirs. CITY FINDS RAILROADS HAVE FINGER IN PIE This in fact took place. When Oak- land awoke to the fact that the Pana- ma canal would soon be open, furnish- ing added ocean traffic, and that its position many " miles farther inland than San Francisco, with no costly ferrying to get in and out, made it a logical rival of the o¢lder port across the bay, the city found its water front in the hands of the railroads and other big' corporations. Oakland wanted to Ferry slip at Oakland, taken from incoming ferry. This slip is still operated by the Southern Pacific railroad, but the state is carrying on successful suits to recover title to this and other railroad held waterfront property. develop its water front under public ownership, but it first had to fight through many years of litigation, some of which is not over yet, to regain possession of what rightfully belonged to it under the grants to the city from the state. The California courts could not get away from the plain language of the. constitution and today Oakland is in possession of practically all of its harbor front and is proceeding to de- velop it like the state has—developed the water front'across the bay. The city is permitting the railroads to re- main on the land they occupy, but they must pay rental and the public admin- istration of the port means that there can be no monopoly by one or a few corporations. Oakland began its public port de- velopment late, but it is making up for lost time. The city has authorized several bond issues and several units in the extensive system of public wharves and warehouses have already been built. One of its big public proj- ects is the reclaiming of several hun- dred acres of tidelands, by a seawall, and filling in behind it. This is going to open a big area for more public wharves and warehouses and will fur- nish attractive sites for industries that wish to locate at Oakland. ELEVATORS AND STORAGE PLANTS WILL COME NEXT W. W. Keith, harbor manager of Oakland, plans the development of this reclaimed area much on the plan that Seattle is developing its harbor front. “These are ideal sites for public cold storage plants and grain elevators,” he told me. “We have in mind the erec- tion on this land of complete facilities for storing all kinds of food products, all to_be under public ownership and operation.” If Oakland, as Mr. Keith plans, puts public elevators, cold storage plants and the like at the disposal of the pro- ducers of the surrounding country, it will have taken a step that will aid it materially in its fight for equal recog- nition as a port with San Francisco. Mr. Keith is familiar with Seattle's public elevator and cold storage plant projects and is an ardent public owner- ship advocate. [} One of the big passenger ferries that ply back and forth on the bay between San Francisco and Oakland. Lower Prices and a Reason Why ORE proof that supply and de- mand do not regulate the prices paid for farm products —read this: “The weakness in the market this week can not be attributed to heavy marketing. This point has had 3500 less hogs so [far this week than last week, while nine markets show a falling off of 23,000 for the two days’. Every farmer who says there is a meat trust that regulates the price of hogs, cattle and sheep is poo-hooed by the backers of present marketing methods, and told with scorn that noth- ing but “supply and demand” affect prices—short supply or strong demand, high prices—long supply or slack de- mand, low prices. Some people still believe that state- ment. But it is no longer true. It gained its prestige before the days of combination, when supply and demand did fix prices, and .the writers of economic text books have not yet caught'up with trust methods. When they do they will write a new formula discrediting the old one, and it will read something like this: “Combina- tion and financial backing” fix prices. PRICE FIXERS EXPLAIN CAUSE OF “WEAK"” MARKET The above livestock quotation was taken from the South St. Paul. Re- porter, of April 17, and related to the hog market there. Everyone inter- ested ought to read the quotation again and see how little room there is left for “supply and demand” to influence the prices- referred to. The market was “weak”., This ‘“weakness” .wag not due to any big inrush of hogs to take advantage of recent high prices. In fact the supply for the two days of the week up to that date was 3500 less than for the same two days of the previous week. Yet the short supply did not send prices up. Instead of that prices were 6 to 10 cents lower. Furthermore there were no outside influences to affect the South St. Paul market adversely. The statement says = that “nine markets show a falling off of 23,000 for the two days". Prices should have gone up according to the rule. These “nine markets” embrace the principal livestock markets of the " country. They are the barometer of the business day by day. There was a shortage everywhere (in fact there has been a growing shortage every- where_for a long time) and yet prices WENT DOWN—NOT UP. Why? 4 Because supply and demand have little to do with fixing prices. Because livestock prices are fixed by the com- binations of capital that control the meat industry as other combinations fix prices on the grain, the oil, and the steel industries, and this short para- graph in the South St. Paul Daily Re- porter simply admits the truth. The manipulation of the South St. Paul market—and of every other as well— is shown in another sentence in the same article which says “buyers were bidding & to 10 cents lower”. The buyers—packing house buyers for Swift and for Armour—simply said, “this had gone high enough. We won't pay anymore. The farmers have got to sell today or tomorrow, for if they don't sell at our prices, yard charges for keeping the stock will pile up, and if they don’t sell to us, who in the name of common sense will they sell to? No sir. It's a nickle to a dime off today". BUT THEY RELENT AND RAISE A NICKEL “However, a compromise was finally affected when buyers raised their top price to $15.70, making the general market a nickel lower”, says the same article in another place. The supply and the demand were the same, but the buyers finally arbitrarily “raised their top price” still leaving the market b cents lower than it had been the day before, in spite of a shortage of 23,000 on the circuit and 3500 at that point, and in spite of the fact that everyone knows the hog supply is dwindling at a fearful rate. FIVE If supply were a controlling factor in raising prices, hog prices would be still steadily advancing. If increased demand were a factor they would also be advancing for everyone knows the demand is not going to fall, while the whole worM is at war and armiés being increased. Hog products are the staples of war supplies, but the price went down, not up, because the pack- ing house trust holds all the aces and the joker. 2 THEN THEY ARBITRARILY CLIP OFF 20 CENTS Take the livestock situation April 18 at the same market, and consider this boldly printed acknowledgement that decreasing supplies do not send prices ufy and that the prices jobtained by farmers for produce are arbitrarily fixed by the market manipulators. Under a large black type column head- ing announcing “hog trade has sharp- est break yet this month” occur these details of the “break’: “The severest break the hog market here has experienced this month came today when prices were cut 15 to 20 cents. THIS WAS THE INITIAL BASIS ON WHICH BUYERS OF- FERED TO DO BUSINESS AND THEY SHOWED NO DISPOSITION TO IMPROVE IT ANY WHEN SELL- ERS HELD BACK. Outside news con- tinued to come discouraging and see- ing no chance to better their bids, TRADERS BEGAN WEIGHING THEIR STOCK AT THE DECLINE. Top hogs were a full 20 cents under the Tuesday mark, “Receipts for the half week show a deficit of nearly 6000 compared to last week, and are about 1000 short of the first three days of the previous week”, The reader will notice that it was the buyers who fixed the initial basis on which they would do business, and that the best hogs on the market were sell- ing 20 cents per 100 pounds less than the day before, in spite of a 10-cent drop the day before, sending ‘hogs down 30 cents in two days. | SR ERL T ek