THE MONTHLY BULLETIN. 173 



SCIENTIFIC DISTRIBUTION OF FRUIT. 



Discussion by Harris Weinstock. 



I shall, first, .Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, address myself 

 to Mr. Wisker, the gentleman who criticized the bill and who criticized 

 the State Market Director. For your information and for his informa- 

 tion, I want to give you a little inside history in connection with the 

 creation of the State Market Commission. 



Von will rememher, perhaps, that at the last .session of the legis- 

 lature an act was passed authorizing the governor to appoint a Rural 

 Credit Commission of five members, whose duty it was to investi- 

 gate the question of establishing a rural credit system and a system 

 of state laud colonization. I had the honor of being appointed by the 

 governor as a member of that commission. Thai commission stalled 

 out to have puhlic hearings throughout the state, in order to get the 

 fullest possible information as to the existing conditions. Some time 

 in August, I think it was, the governor took up with me the marketing 

 bill. He said. "I signed this bill at the last session. I signed it 

 because of the earnest effort on the part of the farmers of California 

 to have thai measure passed. T was in douhl as to its merits until the 

 farmers of the state urged me so strongly that 1 could not resist and 

 I signed the bill. I have held it in abeyance ever since. I have made 

 no appointment for I was not altogether sure how it would work out. 

 I was afraid it mighl involve the state in an undertaking that it would 

 be very unwise for the stair to attempt. Now, your commission is 

 holding public hearings. I wish you would he good enough to take 

 this bill and investigate it. Get all the criticism on it that yon can and 

 advise me what is the best thine- to do under the circumstances." So 

 the Rural Credit Commission took that bill and it was taken up at 

 these hearings and criticisms invited thereon throughout the state. 

 We had it analyzed by farmers, by merchants, by bankers and by real 

 estate men. by anybody and everybody whose opinions were worth 

 hearing. When we were through with our hearings I was prepared 



to make to the gover • a verbal report. I said to him: "This bill has 



been criticized by two different schools of critics. There is one school 

 of critics that has asked the stale to keep its hands oft', that doesu't 

 want the state to have anything to do with this line of activity. There 

 is another school of critics who want that bill carried out literally, who 

 practically want the state of California to go into the retail and whole- 

 sale business of distributing farm products in every town and city. 

 I do not find myself in harmony with either school of critics. I think 

 the state should concern itself with the marketing problem, and that 

 there is an opportunity for the state to accomplish greal good in the 

 interests of producers and consumers, but I do not believe in the 

 stale of California, especially on an appropriation of $25,000, opening 

 retail ami wholesale houses in every eity and town iii the state." 

 I said. "Where I think the state can he of great service is to perform, 

 at least ii the beginning, the same function in the marketing world 

 that the farm adviser performs in the productive world, the stale to 

 act as a market adviser, to develop markets, rind to give producers the 



