The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, February 7, 1921, Page 7

¢ bog %o oy 4 7 e & x ) .?,u,t ” L] b - 7pY - " ® o] - poas S o Vi o} P oy ¢ 14 ‘\" ¥ 4« . e “syisible supply” of wheat in the United . Canadian imports were responsible for Retail stores are attempting to get rid of their stocks to escape bankruptcy. As'prices on wool clothing come down to more nearly reasonable levels the consumers are again taking an interest in buying the suits and overcoats that they had.de- layed purchasing when prices were too high. This ~will mean that the woolen mills probably will have to come into the market again te get new stocks of raw wool. In addition, congress is considering enacting laws putting either a high tariff or an em- bargo against wool .imports and other legislation which would discourage the importation of immense - quantities of low-grade foreign wools. If the North Dakota wool producers can not get a fair price for their wool there is a good chance that they may use a considerable portion of it them- selves. ‘An eastern woolen mill has made the inter- esting offer to make wool up into blankets ac the rate of $5 for a 53%-pound blanket. To make such a blanket takes about 12 pounds of “% blood” grease wool, worth at present prices less than $5. The total cost of the blanket would therefore be - approximately $10, while such blankets now sell at retail at approximately $20, in spite of “revised prices,” - " This proposition is now bemg put up to the North Dakota wool growers and it is probable that - a good proportion of them will accept it. But with the wool clip as yet unsold, the state wool @pol has already helped the wool producers of North Dakota. WHAT THE STATE WOOL POCL HAS ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED "1. Wool producers whose wool is in the central warehouse have been able to, get loans upon it which -will enable them to hold on until an advan- tageous sale can be made. 2. An exchange has been organized which will enable the wool producers to get high-grade bucks and thus improve the quality of their flocks. '38. The wool growers, through their state organ- ization, have urged congress to put an embargo against wool imports and also-have urged prompt action on the “truth in fabric” bill. This bill would require manufacturers of *shoddy cloth to have it labeled with the proport.ion of shoddy used, instead of selling it as “all virgin wool.” 4. The North Dakota sheep men have taken up the fight for a national wool marketing organiza- tion. Thus the North Dakota state wool pooi, to- gether with other state pools, may grow into a national pocl, as big a step in advance of state ac- tion as state action was ahead of county action. The North Dakota wool men haven’t done what they have without opposition. While the wool buyers have not attempted the rough work that the wheaz buyers did when the wheat growers started to organize, they have tried various underhanded expedients in an effort to get the wool growers to desert their crganization. They have written to in- dividual members, stating that they could get them as much as 40 cents a pound for their wool if they would withdraw from their wool pool, and have at- tempted to make the producers believe that the managers were dealing unfairly with them. But the wool growers haven’t withdrawn, As Mr. Haw says, “The juice that has been raised on the wool growers this year seems to be a very stlcky juice.” It is the old “We’ll Stick” spirit in operation. Gamblers Work Gi gantic “Skin Game” S OFFICIAL figures on the wheat situation be- come available it is ap- parent that one of the biggest steals in the his- tory of the Chicago Board of Trade and Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce has been “put over” on the farmers during the past year. ‘When wheat prices started to fall it was stated that it was because too much - wheat was being dumped on the market. Figures now available show that the States, that is, the total amount that is held by terminal elevators or is in transit, is 35,000,000 bushels less than a year ago. Furthermore throughout the fall of 1920 the visible supply was less than the visible supply during the corresponding months of 1919. Next the grain gamblers elaimed that tke fall in the price of American wheat. Figures now available show that dur- ing the time that prices were falling heavily on this side of the line, we were exporting more wheat to Canada than Canada was exporting to us. Next it was stated that the reason for the decline in American prices was the failure of European buyers to enter our markets. - Figures now available show that during 1920 we sold Europe 70,000,000 more bushels of wheat than we sold in 1919, The gamblers also stated, as a reason for low prices, that the British commission, in making purchases for all European nations, was able to _beat the price down.- Figures now available show that the wheat bought by European buyers during 1920 was ac- tually bought at higher prices than during 1919, and that the total value of the export wheat was '$200,000,000 greater than in 1919, although the farmers received far less for it. . HERE ARE THE FIGURES THAT PROVE THESE STATEMENTS Bradstreet’s of January 15 reports the total visi- ble supply in the United States for January 8,. 1921, to be 45,866,000 bushels, as compared with 80,638,000 bushels on the same date a year pre- . vious. The Canadian visible supply is reported slightly greater than that of a year ago, but the visible sup- ply of the United States and Canada.combined is only 92,497,000 bushels, as against 114,358,000 bushels for the United States and Canada together one year ago. Next let us look at the figures of the United States department of agriculture on Canadian im- ports and exports. . During the 10 months ended December 1, 1920, we imported from Canada 14,- 249,121 bushels of wheat and 1,630,841 bushels in the form. of flour (figuring 4% bushels of wheat \ Records of the United States department of agri- culture show that Canadian wheat imports had nothing to do with the fall in price of American wheat, because while the price was falling we were actually shipping more wheat into Canada than Canada was shipping to us. So it must have been’ that the grain gamblers sacked the wind from Can- ada, and sold that as wheat, John Baer says, in a letter he sent with this cartoon. to a barrel of flour). During the same 10 months we exported to Canada, in wheat and flour, 14,086,- 841 bushels, or 1,793,000 bushels less than we im- ported. However, during the eight months up to Septem- ber 1 (the period during which prices were falling like lead and grain gamblers said it was due to Canadian imports) we imported only 3,437,000 bushels, while we were _exporting to Canada 12,- 846,000 bushels. So much for the wheat situation on this continent. Now what about the European situation? The following figures are secured from a com- pilation of the reports of the bureau of foreign and domestic commerce, United States department of commerce: - ‘Wheat exports, first 11 months of 1919, 138,566,~ 764 bushels; value, $333,891,716. Wheat . exports, first 11 months of 1920 192,- 883,961 bushels; value; $535,431,999. This brings the figures up to December 1,.1920. PAGE ‘SEVEN e ] R A A O A S M PO A TR D OIS 3t Europe Bought More Wheat in 1920 Than in 1919 and Paid ngher Price, Figures Show—Who Got the Profit?_ l ‘ TRICKS OF THE TRADE l Turning back to Bradstreet’s for fur- ther figures we learn that increased exports to England are continuing. The following figures show exports from United States and Canadian ports com- bined: 1920 1919 Week ended Bushels Bushels December 2.. 8,027,113 8,534,146 December 9.. 8,491,228 6,706,169 December 16. 9,924,959 4,962,096 December 23. 8,698,824 3,813,001 December 30. 7,205,402 5,391,287 —1921— —1920— January 6....10,935,247 6,609,209 January 13... 6,284,823 4,902,124 Total ......59,667,593 40,918,032 Thus the total exports to Europe from January 1, 1920, to January 13, 1921, were approximately 250,000,000 bushels, or about 70,000,000 bushels more than the exports of the previous year. VISIBLE SUPPLY IN “EUROPE STILL LOW Furthermore, Great Britain appar- ently is not entirely through buying yet. . Bradstreet’s gives the - total United Kingdom- port stocks and afloat (in transit) on January 8 as 67,700,000 bushels, as compared with 74,100,000 bushels a year ago. This does not necessarily mean that the price of wheat -will increase from now on, because Great Britain is likely to buy a considerable portion of what it needs from Australia. and South America, where the wheat crop is now being harvested. What it does mean is. that the grain market has been shamelessly manipulated; that during the very period when European countries were buying most heavily the price of wheat was kept down by arti- ‘ficial means. According to Bradstreet’s reports, the week ended September 2, 1920, wheat exports from United States-and Canadian ports were the heaviest of any week in the history of the two countries, totaling 14,219,878 bushels. At this very time wheat started its downward movement, finally selling on the Minneapolis mar- ket at $1.50 a bushel and less, while the farm price was often less than $1 a bushel. At this very time market reports in daily news- papers and grain trade papers, .controlled by the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and Chlca.go Board of Trade, stated that the British commission was “out of the market” and making no purchases. Suppression of news and false reports could not be kept up forever. As the truth came to light, showing purchases and exports much larger than for the previous year and a smaller visible supply, the price of wheat inevitably rose. But in the meantime the market gamblers had secured most of the wheat and had disposed of it at fancy profits.