192 Cooperation in Agriculture 



cotton it is exceedingly difficult to determine the effect 

 of any specific cause, and anything like a precise measure- 

 ment of such effect is impossible. Thus, in the case of 

 the Farmers' Union there is absolutely no means of de- 

 termining to what extent the time of selling or the price 

 received by the producer was affected by the action of 

 the union in recommending the minimum price. It fol- 

 lows that it is not only impossible to tell whether individual 

 producers gained or lost as a result of this minimum-price 

 policy, but also whether the course of prices was at all 

 influenced by that policy. 



" For instance, hi the season 1906-1907, the Farmers' 

 Union named a minimum price of 1 1 cents ; hi September 

 of that year middling cotton in New Orleans was quoted 

 at about 9| cents. It advanced hi October to above 

 11 cents, and during most of the period from October 

 to May the price fluctuated between 10^ and 11 cents, 

 while still later in the season it advanced to over 13 cents. 

 This does not necessarily mean that the price policy of 

 the Farmers' Union was the dominating influence in this 

 advance. In 1906-1907 the demand for cotton was ex- 

 ceedingly active. 



"In the season 1907-1908 the Farmers' Union recom- 

 mended a minimum of 15 cents per pound, whereas, except 

 in September (when the New Orleans price touched 13.56 

 cents), the price of middling at New Orleans in this sea- 

 son never exceeded Yl\ cents, and frequently fell below 

 11 cents, and at times below 10 cents. On the other 

 hand, hi this season there occurred the panic of 1907, 

 while other causes operated to counteract the efforts of 

 the Farmers' Union. While, therefore, a comparison of 



