THE FOOD CRISIS AND AMERICANISM 67 



commission is quoted as saying in substance: That 

 the profits on milling increased from 12 per cent, for 

 the four years ending June 30, 1916, to nearly 38 per 

 cent, for the year ending June 30, 1917; and then in 

 quotation, presumably from the commission's report, 

 said, " These profits " it is stated " are indefensi- 

 ble, considering that an average profit of one mill for 

 six months of the year showed as high as $2 a barrel.'* 

 If these things be true, it is evident that the profiteers 

 were appropriating to themselves all and more than 

 would have gone to the farmers under the Gore 

 Amendment. The farmers fail to see how the taking 

 of money out of their own pockets and putting it into 

 the pockets of the profiteers savors of patriotism. 

 Possibly these Congressmen can explain. As the Gore 

 Amendment was before House and Senate for several 

 months, its passage vigorously contested by these 

 statesmen, and " these indefensible conditions " in 

 the milling business, according to the Federal Trade 

 Commission, continued for at least six months, these 

 Congressmen were estopped from pleading ignorance. 

 Will the Food Administration advance the price of 

 wheat, and thus stimulate production, or does it con- 

 sider this extravagant margin between price of wheat 

 to producer and cost of flour to the consumer as legiti- 

 mate plunder for the profiteers? The consumers 

 would rather pay a higher price for flour than to con- 

 tinue to pay the extortionate prices now exacted for its 

 inferior substitutes. 



