The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, March 29, 1920, Page 5

P '3"‘0 “leave in the treasury as a reserve fund. - Henry Krumrey's Story—Conclusmn‘ Orgamzatlon of Wisconsin Cheese Producers’ Federation and Last week Mr. Krumrey told of the abuses suffered by Wisconsin farmers at the hands of cheese dealers, their determination to organize, how 43 farmers’ faectories got together in a federation to sell their own cheese, selected a selling agent and were ready to go ahead, but couldn’t use they were unable to secure a warehouse. There were warehouses empty, but the cheese dealers’ combina- tion prevenbed the farmers from renting them. From this goes on with his story. BY HENRY KRUMREY President Wisconsin' Cheese Producers’ Association E WERE obliged to build in order to do our business. So we built. We or- ganized the Federated Farmers’ Ware- house company, with a capital stock of $20,000, a share of stock costing — $10. Inside of a week more than half of this amount was subscribed. Soon all of=the $20 000 was subscribed and paid in. - Farmers who bought this warehouse stock were assured 5 per cent on their investment. This is the rent the federation paid for the use of the ware- house and storage, but the stockholders also pledg- ed themselves that at any time the federation wanted to buy this warehouse they would sell their stock to it at par. A modern warechouse and storage was built, costing $25,5600, and was completed Apnl 1, 1914, when the ileese from 48 factories in the federa- tion was received to be marketed by our salesman. It was then a Sheboygan county proposition, known as the Sheboygan County Cheese Producers’ federation, but in January, 1917, we changed our name to the Wisconsin Cheese Producers’ federa- tion, owing to the fact that farm- ers outside of the county wished to join. The expected- happened. Our enemies did everything they could to embarrass us. They put the board price higher than it had ever been before at that time of the year. They were willing to pay more for cheese than it was actually worth if they could only keep us from being able to pay as much as they were. But this did not last long. In the beginning we were not known to the trade and had some difficulty in disposing of our cheese, but we soon found a good market for it and were able to get as much for it as the dealers were, and when the year was up we found that we had made a profit of $4,600, which instead of paying out to the farmers it was voted at the annual meeting to The next year things went still better and after paying the farm- ers market or board price we were more than $10,000 ahead for that year. For 1916 we were $13,000 ‘A. H. Hall, sales manager Wis- consin Cheese Producers’ association. the Success It Achieved ahead. The farmers voted to leave the money in the treasury instead of paying it out, so that on January 1, 1917, we had more than $28,000 in the treasury. It was voted to use $25,600 to buy up the warehouse stock of the Federated Farmers’ Warehouse com- pany and pay the indebt- edness on it, and since that time the federation owns the warehouse and storage which has been rebuilt and enlarged and now could not be replaced for less than $70,000. In 1918, after paying the farmers Spring Green storage and warehouse, Wisconsin Cheese Producers’ association in the federation the mar- ket or board price and in some instances more, we found at the end of the year when we closed our books, took stock and had an audit that we had more than $20,000 -in the treasury, which it was voted at the annual meeting to pay out to the dif- ferent local associations organized around the cheese factories according to the amount of cheese that each association had delivered to us, and they in turn pay it out to the farmers according to the amount of milk that each had delivered to the cheese factory. January 1, 1919, we were $30,000 ahead, $22,000 of which was paid out, the rest remained in the treasury. Janu- ary 1, 1920, we were $26,000 ahead. That farmers can successfully market their cheese co-operatively and reduce the cost of marketing has been demonstrafed by this federation. The following report of the findings of the department of ag- ricultural economics of the Uni- versity of Wisconsin and of the Wisconsin division of markets, which during December and Jan- uary last made a thorough in- vestigation of how this business is run, tells the story: “The Wisconsin Cheese Pro- ducers’ federation has a member- ship of 120 factories. With a probable average of 25 farmer patrons for each factory there are 3,000 farmer members in the federation. They marketed 14,- 098,021 pounds of cheese through their organization during 1919. During 1914, the first year of op- eration, only 45 cheese factories belonged to the federation and only 6,125,480 pounds of cheese were handled. The federation therefore handled in 1919 two and three-tenths times as much cheese as in 1914. For each dollars’ worth of business done in 1914 almost $6 worth was done in 1919. (Paid to factories for cheese in 1914, $855,328; in 1919, $4,243,938.) “The federation markets cheese at an expense which is extremely small. In 1912, before the fed- eration was created, private cheese dealers took a margin which amounted to from 4.7 cents to 9.3 cents on each dollar’s worth of cheese marketed. Today the federation has an operating cost of only 1.4 cents on each dollar of cheese sales. The dif- ference between the 4.7 cents and the 1.4 cents rep- resents the money savings due to operating advan- tages which the federation is bringing to its pa- trons. Frequently a further advantage is gained from the fact that the federation sells much of its cheese at a higher price than the board. More im- portant than the present money gains obtained are the benefits of future advantages which will come through continued improvement in the quality of cheese handled by the federation. “The Wisconsin Cheese Producers’ federation is _one of the most- successful and commendable ex- amples of farmers’ co-operation in the United States. Next to the California Fruit Growers’ ex- change, which is the largest and most successful farmers’ co-operative company in the United States, the federation has the lowest operating costs. -, “The experience of the federation indicates that Wisconsin farmers have a great opportunity before them in building up a strong, unified co-operative cheese producers’ selling organization. The fed- eration has shown that it knows how to sell cheese and keep the costs down. What it should have is more cheese. If Wisconsin farmers provide the volume of business this federation, because of what it now does and will do for its patrons, is destined to rank in the class with the- California and Cana- dian farmers’ co-operative societies. “THEODORE MACKLIN “Department of Agricultural - Economlcs “EDWARD NORDMAN, ~ “Wisconsin Division of Markets 2 League Forces Put a Dent in the “Solid South” BY A SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT HE Nonpartisan league has had its #| first skirmish in the Solid South. In a special legislative election in Har- ris, Fort Bend and Waller counties, Texas, Charles Murphy, League and labor candidate for the state senate, carried Harris county (one of the largest in the. state, and including the city of Houston, popula- tion 150,000) by 400 votes, failing in election by only 75 votes because the smaller counties of Fort Bend and Waller were unorganized. The remarkable showing of League strength, in the view of unprejudiced politicians, means almost certam success for the farmer-labor ticket in the- campaign that will follow. The campaign was one of the most remarkable Texas ever saw. Business interests of Houston called a meeting to select a candidate for state senator and chose Representative Davidson. Of the 100 or more business and professional leaders at this meeting only one refused to indorse David- son, . This man, Judge Henry J. Dannebaum, with- drew. A people’s convention, consmtmg of League mem- bers, representatives from Houston labor unions and delegates representing the general public, chose Representative Charles Murphy as their can- didate and adopted a platform based on the North Dakota League program. Judge Dannebaum, a noted jurist and orator, was attacked because he was supporting Murphy and thus was lined up with the Nonpartisan league, which was being reviled bitterly by Houston news- pepers and business interests. Judge Dannebaum had paid little attention to the League and admit- ted he knew nothing of it—but he set out to learn. He addressed a telegram to Governor Lynn J. Frazier of North Dakota, asking a number of ques- tions advanced by the League opposition, and investi- gated the League for himself along other lines. As the result of Judge Dannebaum’s investiga- PAGE FIVE b tion he announced that he proposed not merely to support Murphy as an individual, but the League and League program as well. Dannebaum chal- lenged Davidson’s campaign manager to meet him in open debate on the League. The city auditorium was secured and 1,000 persons attended the meet- ing—but no representative of the anti-League in- terests appeared. Speakers included Judge Danne- baum, Mr. Murphy, E. R. Meitzen and J. W. Can- ada, editor of the Southland Farmer, leaders in the farmer-labor campaign. Every point that had been raised by hostile newspapers against the League and its candidates was answered and every speaker was given a rousing reception. The Davidson campaign committee promptly hir- ed the auditorium for the next night and by the use of bands and several hundred dollars’ worth of ad- vertising secured a crowd about equal to the farm- er-labor crowd. The speakers got frequent applause —but it came at the wrong places in their ad- (Continued on page 11)