FUNDAMENTAL CONDITIONS 17 



it to commission men at quite unremunerative prices, 1 it was 

 but natural for him to look upon these dealers as his enemies 

 and to feel that they controlled the situation and fixed such 

 prices as they chose, and indeed it seems to be true that the 

 returns to the farmer were often smaller and the share retained 

 by the commission man larger than would have been the case 

 had there been more competition among the merchants and more 

 organization among the farmers. In a small place there was 

 frequently but one produce buyer and where there were more 

 the number was so small that combination was easy for the 

 purpose of eliminating competition and maintaining prices. 

 The produce buyers were in a position to watch the markets 

 and their facilities for storage were such that they could take 

 advantage of fluctuations; while the farmers, usually ignorant 

 of the state of the market and with no facilities for holding 

 their crops, often brought about a glut and reduced prices by 

 throwing large quantities of produce on the market at once. 

 The charges of the farmers were that the commission men 

 exacted too high rates for their services in getting the crops to 

 market and that the products of agriculture were obliged to 

 pass through too many toll-taking hands before they reached 

 the consumer. This latter evil they proposed to remedy, as 

 will appear later, by eliminating the commission merchant or 

 buyer at the local center and shipping directly to the merchant 

 at the large central market. 2 



1 For an instance, see Illinois State Grange, Proceedings, iv. 92 (1875). Stories 

 of this sort are quite common. One, which was frequently used by the agitators, 

 told of a farmer carrying a load of grain to market and returning with a pair of 

 shoes for his boy the sole purchase which he was able to make with the returns 

 from the sale of his grain. 



2 United States Industrial Commission, Report, vi. 6, 36-143, 235-268; Illinois 

 State Grange, Proceedings, iv. 42-46 (1875); National Grange, Proceedings, vii. 

 *3> 57, 79 ( J 874); Carr, Patrons of Husbandry, 75-103; J. R. Dodge, " The Dis- 

 content of the Farmer," in Century, xxi. 447-456 (January, 1892); W. A. Peffer, 

 " The Farmers' Defensive Movement," in Forum, viii. 464-473 (December, 1889). 

 The tendency to monopoly in the commission business was sometimes fostered 

 by the railroads. Because of convenience or on account of business relations, they 

 are said to have favored the established elevators at the expense of would-be com- 

 petitors. See letter from Winona County, Minnesota, in Farmers' Union, January 

 18, 1873- 



