Though little that was new on the subjects under discussion was brought
forward, the First National Conference on Marketing and Farm Credits,
through the papers presented and the official resolutions adopted,
called attention to certain highly important facts. The conference
agreed that a number of conditions detrimental both to the farmers and
the general public are prevalent, and that certain constructive remedial
policies are necessary. One proposition to which there was general
agreement was that the margin between the price which the producer
receives for his product and that which the consumer pays for it is too
great. The farmer receives too little and the consumer pays too much.
The market for farm products is too unstable and the fluctuations and
variations in price are too great and too uncertain. Competition has
failed adequately to control and regulate prices.
The present marketing facilities, it was stated, are utterly inadequate
to bring the supply and the demand together. Quantities of farm produce
rot in the fields because they cannot be gotten to those markets in
which there is an active demand for them. This is partly because of the
lack of properly distributed shipping facilities; partly because the
producers are not sufficiently in touch with the markets; partly because
storage firms, commission men’s associations, etc. interfere with the
normal operation of the markets; and partly because certain kinds of
products are not provided to the mass of consumers at prices which they
can afford to pay, though that price would give the producer an ample
profit if exorbitant middleman’s profits were eliminated.
B. F. Yoakum estimated that every year fruit and vegetables worth
$35,000,000 rot on the ground from the lack of shipping and storage
facilities and of knowledge of receptive markets. The annual loss from
corn stalks, rice, flax and other grain straw which is now burned he
estimated at $250,000,000. The additional amount which the farmers could
receive for their products, if by co-operation they knew when and where
to sell their products, he placed at $1,500,000,000 per year, making a
total loss of $1,785,000,000. In the judgment of the conference this was
not an over-statement of the facts.
The delegates to the conference also agreed that the average farmer has
a total income disproportionate to his importance in the national
economy. W. J. Spillman, chief of the Bureau of Farm Management of the
federal Department of Agriculture, estimated that the average farm
income in this country is about $655 a year; of this amount about $1 a
day is the entire return for labor. This labor income, he asserted,
holds throughout the states. After computing the interest on his
investment, the farmer averages $1 for every day he works. In states
such as Illinois, he said, where the investment is greater, the farm
family has a larger sum to use without impairing the capital than in a
state like New York. The difference, however, is in the interest on
invested capital not in labor income.
Even in sections where the farmers generally are satisfied with the
return which they get for their labor, they are unable to get products
to the consumers at a reasonable price. This works a great and
unnecessary hardship upon the poor.
Farmers generally, and especially small farmers, it was agreed, are at
present unable to secure for sufficient time and at a reasonable rate,
the capital with which to purchase land or proper equipment and
materials for the most effective and economical operation of farm
property. In this connection the European methods of rural credit were
discussed at some length.
In considering the remedies for these conditions, certain general
principles, it was decided, should control whatever policies were
advocated.
It was urged that farm products ought to be generally standardized as
commercial products are. There should also be organization among farmers
for the raising of particular standardized products in different
communities or in different parts of the same community to which they
are especially adapted. Scientific farming and soil conservation were
assumed.
The key-word emphasized by the speakers for all efforts to improve
agricultural conditions was co-operation. This co-operation, they
declared, must have the dual purpose of giving the producer a fair and
consistent profit and of giving products to the consumer at the lowest
possible price. The producer and the consumer must be taken into
complete partnership. Combination must never be on the principle of the
industrial combinations or trusts. This will require some little
revision of our present anti-trust laws to permit combinations except
“in so far as they are detrimental to the interests of the people.”
Finally, the conference in its formal resolutions advocated the
following constructive measures:
(a) The passage by Congress of a currency system which will permit
farmers to obtain currency on their land in much the same manner that
national bankers obtain currency by depositing bonds as security.
(b) Taking government crop reporting out of the hands of “stock
gamblers” and making it a public matter.
(c) The rapid development of the government Bureau of Markets about to
be established.
(d) The organized co-operation, both of consumers and producers, under
proper supervision, to promote effective distribution, economical
marketing, and to reduce expenses between producer and consumer.
(e) Organized co-operation properly supervised to secure more
advantageous systems of rural credit.
(f) The extension and improvement of the parcel’s post as a potent
factor in reducing the cost and facilitating the distribution of the
products of the farm to the ultimate consumers.