258 NEBRASKA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY 



I understand it is the purpose of the conference to contribute to 

 the solution of the problem of efficient distribution, but no more than 

 general suggestions can be offered in an introductory address. We 

 shall all doubtless agree that its solution rests about the word coopera- 

 tion — cooperation of the producer, cooperation of the consumer, coopera- 

 tion of the distributing agency with the producer and the consumer. 

 If this be conceded, one fundamental principle in connection with it 

 should be understood at the outset. Cooperation involves surrender of 

 independence. If two people agree to cooperate in regard to any matter 

 it means that each one of them surrenders some measure of his freedom. 

 If one hundred people agree to cooperate it means that each one of 

 them must largely surrender hi,s independence in handling the matter 

 in question. Cooperation means the rule of the majority and that every 

 man who joins in the coaperation must abide by the conclusions reached. 

 Not only so but the business officials of an association must have 

 delegated to them the necessary power to carry on the affairs of the 

 cooperative society in the same efficient and authoritative way that do 

 those of an ordinary corporation. Cooperation can not possibly succeed 

 if the officers do not have the proper authority and support. 



This surrender of freedom is one of the broad principles which is 

 frequently overlooked and is an especially difficult point in dealing with 

 the American farmer. He prides himself upon his independence in 

 production; he is confident of his business ability: he will decide for 

 himself. But in order to have the cooperative movement succeed the 

 farmer must agree to circumscribe his liberty in many respects; and, 

 furthermore, must live up to his agreement. A second point requiring 

 consideration is the relation of cooperation and combination. The idea 

 of cooperation is everywhere hailed as a desirable thing for the farmer, 

 and this is true at a time when there is equal denunciation of combina- 

 tions of the kinds commonly called trusts. But it should be fully under- 

 stood that combination by the manufacturers is for the very same purpose 

 that cooperation is designed to cover for the farmers. The idea is the 

 same in each case; the word is different. Why is it, then, that coopera- 

 tion is hailed as a great advance step for the farmer at the same moment 

 that combination in industry is assailed? 



What are the purposes of combination? They are limitation of 

 output, division of the market so as to avoid cross freights, the main- 

 tenance of prices, the securing of transportation at reasonable rates. 

 What are the purposes of cooperation? They are the division of the 

 markets so as to avoid cross freights, the securing of transportation 

 at reasonable rates and the maintenance of prices; and those who are 

 most enthusiastic for the cooperative movement have even advocated 

 limitation of output. Thus, while the combination of manufacturers 

 and cooperation of farmers have the same purposes, it should be pointed 

 out that the danger to the consumers of cooperation for agricultural 

 products is not nearly so great as is combination for manufacfured 

 products. In the first place the producers of an agricultural product 



