FOURTEENTH ANNUAL YEAR BOOK— PART X. 691 



failure of the other. It can become a reality only when the interests of 

 both are mutual, and the success of one would contribute to the advance- 

 ment of the other. 



Co-operation can accomplish three things. First, banish antagonism, 

 second, eliminate inequalities, and third, bring about concerted action. 

 We have chosen in this paper to call special attention (with some varia- 

 tions and digressions) to the need of better co-operation by the farmer 

 and the merchant. In using the town merchant, we desire to be under- 

 stood as meaning more particularly the retail merchant, as he is next to 

 the consumer, and we believe he is necessary for the convenience of the 

 farmer, as well as the public. In the absence of co-operation we find exist- 

 ing between the farmer and merchant, differences, misunderstandings 

 and in some localities, real antagonism. But in this respect we take 

 pleasure in stating that here in Marion the relations of the farmer and 

 the merchant are very cordial. In order that all may see and fully realize 

 the need of co-operation by the merchant and farmer, we shall first 

 state the contentions of the merchant. His contention is that the farmer 

 is doing an injustice to him and to the community by purchasing 

 goods from mail order houses, and other firms some distance away, as 

 those firms pay no local taxes and do not contribute to the upbuilding 

 of the local community, while the merchant is a taxpayer in the local 

 community, buys the farmer's products and extends credit to him when 

 he needs it, and therefore, according to every rule of justice, he is en- 

 titled to all of the farmer's trade. 



The farmer's contention is that it is only a business principle, and 

 borrowed from the merchant, to buy where you can buy the cheapest 

 and sell where you can get the most. That the merchant very often 

 sends away for goods he could buy of the local manufacturer, that he 

 has farm products shipped in from other states when . he might have 

 purchased them of the local farmer; that in other words he doesn't prac- 

 tice what he preaches. The farmer further contends that tne cost of 

 delivering goods in the city is added to the price of the goods and he 

 pays the same price for the goods undelivered that city people pay and 

 have them delivered at their door. To illustrate: The merchants of 

 Marion by a co-operative plan pay $470 per month or $5,640 per year to 

 have the goods they sell to the people of Marion delivered. It is con- 

 ceded that the farmer's trade in Marion is equal to the trade of the people 

 of the city, therefore the farmers in the vicinity of Marion pay $2,820 

 annually for the delivering of goods to the people in Marion for which 

 he receives absolutely nothing in return. What is true of Marion in this 

 respect is true of every city in this country. 



The farmers are not asking that the merchants make a less price on 

 goods to them, but we would like the people of the city to appreciate that 

 the cost of this luxury they enjoy is partly borne by the farmer. We 

 want to serve notice on the merchant and the business men of the city 

 that when they become members of an organization that binds its mem- 

 bers to only purchase goods away from home when they cannot be ob- 

 tained at home, we are willing to join with them and boost for the ad- 

 vancement of- home products. It is the belief of the farmer that by co- 



