1898. 



THE AMERICAN BEE-KEEPER. 



99 



only "effective cure." 



[A proof of the foregoing was sent to Mr. Jolley 

 ill order that a reply thereto might appear simul- 

 taneously, if he so desired. The following is his 

 response.— Ed. J 



probi,:em of marketing. 



A Reply to Mr. Doolittle's Criti- 

 cism. 



BY ED. JOLLEY. 



Keeping as close as possible to 

 the editor's enjoinment to brev- 

 ity, I will try and answer a 

 few of Mr. Doolittle's questions. 



The thread of Mr. Doolittle's argu- 

 ment is that it is owing to the system 

 of trusts and combines, that we have 

 the abnormal condition of unbalanced 

 trade, with its attendant depreciation 

 of values and falling prices. And that 

 the price of everything on which no 

 trust is formed falls at a commensu- 

 rate with those that are operated by 

 the trusts. 



Now let us see if the actual facts will 

 warrant this view. By the way of il- 

 lustration we will examine one arti- 

 cle that is controlled by trusts, and one 

 that is not, and for the sake of brevity 

 we will let these articles stand as ex- 

 amples of their respective classes, as 

 the same line of reasoning will carry 

 out with all other articles of either 

 class. We will first take wheat. As 

 long as the amount of wheat produced 

 was equal to the demand, the wheat mar- 

 ket was normal. But with the develop- 

 ing of the wheat resources of the 

 country, the time came when the wheat 

 produced exceeded the demand. The 

 farmers were not financially able to 

 hold their wheat. Consequently there 

 was the abnormal condition of a glut- 

 ted market and falling prices. It was 

 then that a combine of moneyed men 

 was formed for the purpose of keep- 

 ing the bottom from dropping out and 

 completely demoralizing the wheat 

 market. They bought and held this 

 surplus and restored the wheat market 

 to its normal condition by regulating 

 the supply to the demand. Were it not 



for this system, in seasons of great 

 plenty the price of wheat would go 

 lown below the cost of productHon and 

 in times of scarcity so high as to be al- 

 most beyond the reach of the poorer 

 classes. 



We will now take an article, that 

 owing to its perishable nature, cannot 

 be made subject to this system — pota- 

 toes. In seasons of universal large 

 crops of potatoes will go begging for 15 

 or 20 cents a bushel. And in times of 

 scarcity they go so high that you can 

 almost taste money in every bite of 

 them. 



Following out this line of reasoning 

 on articles held in trust, and all 

 not, the question naturally arises why 

 everything is lower in price than in 

 the early "seventies." Owing to better 

 developed resources, improved ma- 

 chinery and appliances, and short cuts 

 in labor, the cost of production now, 

 is as much less relatively as the sell- 

 ing price. 



Now, as to brother Doolittle's state- 

 ment that honey occupies the same 

 place in our markets relative to other 

 products, that it did in the "early 

 seventies," when he got 25 and 30 cents 

 per pound. Now to show you that this 

 statement is not correct, we will go 

 back to the "early seventies," and I 

 trade with those gentlemen named by 

 friend Doolittle. Smith, Jones, Bar- 

 ber, etc. To make it short I will con- 

 summate a deal with but oue of them, 

 which will be illustrative of what a 

 deal with others would amount to. I 

 will take my honey and go to Barber 

 and trade for shoes. I will charge him 

 25 cents a pound for the honey, and it 

 didn't cost me but little more to pro- 

 duce a pound of honey then than it 

 does now, with all our present short 

 cuts and appliances. Barber charges 

 me $4 for a pair of shoes. I give him 

 16 pounds of honey and complete the 

 deal. In those days Barber's shoe- 

 maker would work all day to make a 

 pair of shoes. Now Barber has im- 

 proved machinery by which his man 



