EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL MEETING. 35 



WHAT WE HAVE AND WHAT WE LACK IN MICHIGAN. 



The commercial systems for the marketing of Michigan fruits are too well 

 known to require a review before an audience of Michigan fruit growers. But 

 it may be well to compare our methods with other fruit localities which seek 

 a common market. Lake transportation is supposed to give western Michigan 

 a great advantage in the Chicago market. So far as the transportation of 

 small fruits from the lake ports nearest to Chicago is concerned, this will 

 always be true; but not one-half of the tree fruits shipped from Michigan to 

 Chicago are consumed in that city. They are reshipped in little lots and in 

 car lots over the many roads which diverge from Chicago to small places and 

 large towns, where they are consumed. 



The modern world moves on wheels. Large mercantile transactions are by 

 the car-load. Minneapolis and St. Paul consume and distribute more fruit 

 than Chicago did twenty years ago. A hundred small towns in the west will 

 each buy a car-load of good Michigan peaches if they can get them in good 

 condition and at a fair price, and twenty thousand prairie farmers, who never 

 expect to grow apples, will buy annually from one to ten barrels each, and rail- 

 ways will carry fruit home to their best customers at cheap rates. 



I can not at this writing outline new and better methods for the transpor- 

 tation and sale of Michigan fruits. Lake transportation and the intervention 

 of the commission system will always be necessary in the large lake cities; 

 but fruits consumed at points beyond Chicago should not pay tribute to that 

 city, nor be subject to the delay and rough handling incident to transfer from 

 boats to cars. Some lessons may be learned in co-operation from the results 

 obtained by other organizations herein alluded to, and these subjects more 

 carefully considered at con\entions of fruit growers in the future, when prac- 

 tical suggestions may be made and preliminary action taken having in view 

 the reconstruction of the Michigan Fruit Exchange upon a broad and per- 

 manent basis. 



TESTIMONY OF THE SHIPPERS. 



An animated and interesting discussion ensued upon the reading of this 

 paper. Prof. B^al asked if there were any growers present who had shipped 

 fruit beyond Chicago to cities or small towns. 



D. W. Hinman of Fennville : I have sent peaches to Minneapolis, with 

 good results. 



J. F. Taylor of Douglas: I know of no one sufficiently acquainted with 

 results to intelligently express an opinion. It is difficult for one sending 

 large quantities to adhere either to Chicago or beyond. The shipper by lake 

 may often be harmed by boats being too late for trains west, thus causing a 

 whole day's delay. In such cases the fruit might better have been left in 

 Chicago and sold there. Transfer in Chicago creates a charge which the 

 shipper can ill afford when margins are close, and express charges on small 

 lots consume profits. Buyers in the small towns are fastidious, ''returns" are 

 uncertain, and there is considerable loss of packages, so the end of such ship- 

 ments is likely to be unsatisfactory. When a grower can send to a few reli- 

 able, prompt, interior dealers it is an advantage, but otherwise it is better 

 to send to Chicago and receive payment in reasonable time. I have sent to 

 Indianapolis and a few other such places, but the results were unsatisfactory, 

 owing to loss of packages and payment. Again, it is useless to send the 



