CALIFORNIA'S LAW 133 



as first Market Director, Harris Weinstock, a man of mature years 

 and wide business experience. A State Senator of California began 

 a fight against the administration of this Act, which battle of words 

 throws much light on the question of correct State policy in engag- 

 ing in marketing activities. The permanent value of this debate 

 justifies its reproduction, in part, at this time. 



"The Senator believes," says the Market Director, "that the 

 end in view can best be achieved by State Markets, the creation 

 of which he contends is made mandatory by this law. I contend, 

 on the other hand, that the best results can be achieved by encour- 

 aging producers to keep on producing, by getting more people to 

 produce, by cutting out speculation in farm products and by col- 

 lective marketing. These things I hold can be best brought about 

 by cooperative organization on the part of producers, rather than 

 by State markets, which under the law are made discretionary on 

 the part of the State Market Director and not mandatory, as 

 the Senator would have us believe." In other words, self help 

 must not be weakened, but rather strengthened. 



The Senator charged the Market Director with organizing the 

 growers into marketing associations, and that these producers' 

 "combines" were oppressing the consumer and increasing the 

 cost of living. 



The Market Director admitted having organized the following 

 groups of growers: California Peach Growers; Poultry Producers 

 of Central California; Poultry Producers of Southern California; 

 Associated Milk Producers; Pacific Rice Growers Association; 

 Prune and Apricot Growers; California Associated Olive Growers. 

 The Director denied, however, that such organizations oppressed 

 the consumer. The Director denied that these "combines" raised 

 prices to the consumers. Collective marketing lessens the cost of 

 distribution. The Director, in answering the Senator, claimed 

 that products raised by unorganized farmers, such as onions, 

 potatoes and beans, increased in retail price on the San Francisco 

 market in the two years 1915-1917 one hundred and twenty-six 

 per cent, but that, at the same time, products raised by the organ- 

 ized farmers, such as raisins and dried peaches, decreased in retail 

 price five and one-half per cent. The market is stabilized, says 

 the Director, by the organization of the producers. "While it is 

 in the interest of the speculator in food products," he says "to 

 squeeze out the highest possible price wherever this can be done, 

 regardless of the welfare of the producer or the consumer, farmers' 

 marketing associations are in quite a different position. The 



