I. A. A. RECORD— July, 1933 



THE fact that a number of state 

 farmer elevator associations 

 have drifted into the hands of 

 mere propagandists against farmer- 

 owned and farmer-controlled market- 

 ing in the terminals is a reflection on 

 farmers' elevators everywhere and an 

 outrage upon the co-operative ideals 

 of those who pioneered in the move- 

 ment. 



Farmers' elevators together with 

 township and county mutual insur- 

 ance companies represent the first suc- 

 cessful achievements of farmers in the 

 co-operative field. These service insti- 

 tutions were organized to meet a defi- 

 »ite need. They blazed the trail in 

 .farmer co-operation and thereby ren- 

 : r dered a great service. 



The first farmers' elevators came 

 ;, into being more than a half century 

 • ago to correct abuses in the handling 

 v^ and grading of grain, and in the pur- 

 j.;^ chase of feeds and commodities, at 

 ■'country points. They demonstrated 

 ', that with competent management and 

 J"; adequate capital, farmers can succeed 

 *■ ; in reducing the cost of assembling and 

 ■ shipping grain and handling certain 

 -^supplies. Early successes in this field 

 :• developed the necessary self-confidence 

 and leadership to bring about further 

 achievements in the co-operative move- 

 ment. 



So it is that many leaders in the 

 terminal grain co-operatives of today 

 secured their training and knowledge 

 to fit them for the larger tasks from 

 their experience in working through 

 local elevators in their home commu- 

 ' nities. Such men as President Huff, 

 Webb, Johnstone, Peterson, Horn, 

 Hague, and Maddock of the Farmers 

 National Grain Corp. directorate, have 

 served as officers and directors in local 

 elevators. 



Likewise in this state the direc- 

 torate of Illinois Grain Corporation is 

 composed of former or present farmer 

 elevator officers and directors, a num- 

 ber of them such as J. C. Sailor, Geo. 

 L. Potter, E. H. Stevenson, and others, 

 pioneers in the work. 



The terminal co-operatives already 

 have demonstrated that there is just 

 as much, if not more, opportunity to 

 render a great service to grain pro- 

 ducers at the big markets as at the 

 country points. Therefore it is incon- 

 ceivable that anyone thoroughly sold 



on the co-operative idea should hold 

 that the local farmer elevator is all 

 right, whereas the terminal co-oper- 

 ative is all wrong. Yet this is exactly 

 the position held by officers and em- 

 ployees in two or three so-called state 

 farmer grain dealers associations. The 

 inconsistencies of the situation do not 

 seem to bother them. A searching in- 

 vestigation of the reasons for the 

 close connection between the in- 

 dividuals operating such associations, 

 and the grain trade, undoubtedly 

 would develop much interesting in- 

 formation. 



The state elevator associations in 

 the northwest, we are told, have de- 

 generated into mere "paper" organi- 

 zations, without a substantial follow- 

 ing. Certain elements in the grain 

 trade apparently have seized these 

 derelicts, manned them with their own 

 hirelings, and now use them to fire 

 broadsides of propaganda against the 

 grain co-operatives in the central mar- 

 kets. 



Thus it has been made to appear 

 that farmers are divided in their sup- 

 port of real co-operative marketing. 

 And in reality many sincere grain 

 producers and local elevator boards 

 have been so confused by the malicious 

 and baseless charges against the 

 Farmers National Grain Corporation 

 and its member stockholders that they 

 have hesitated to support the insti- 

 tutions which were expressly created 

 with the friendly assistance of gov- 

 ernment to help them. 



In time, of course, the fabrications 

 of these enemies of the grain producer 

 will fall of their own weight. The at- 

 mosphere will clear. The continued 

 growth of the co-operative movement 

 is an indication that this is now com- 

 ing to pass. The constant demonstra- 

 tion of successful handling of grain 

 by the big co-operatives breeds con- 

 fidence in itself. 



The lesson to be learned from the 

 activities of these renegade farmer 

 elevator associations which work 

 against the real interests of grain 

 producers is that in too many in- 

 stances boards of directors have ceased 

 to direct. This situation is not con- 

 fined to farmer boards. In a recent 

 decision, a New York judge held the 

 directors of the International Match 

 Corporation liable for the mishandling 

 of the finances of that organization al- 

 though they pleaded ignorance, there- 

 fore exemption from the consequences 

 of their employees acts. "Boards of 

 directors are supposed to direct," said 

 the judge.— E. G. T. 



The Trouble With Hogs 



American hog farmers are beset 

 with an excess production problem be- 

 cause of a severe contraction in their 

 export outlet says the Bureau of Ag- 

 ricultural Economics. Where the 

 American hog farmer averaged 20 

 foreign customers for pork in the 

 1926-29 period, he had only eight left 

 in 1932. And where he had 40 foreign 

 customers for lard during this same 

 pre-depression period, he had less than 

 30 in 1932. 



The shrinkage in exports during the 

 past year alone was equivalent by 

 weight to approximately a half million 

 market-weight hogs. And the differ- 

 ence between exports last year and 

 ■ our record peace-time exports in 1923 

 is equivalent to about 8,000,000 hogs. 

 In other words, the decrease in an- 

 nual exports since 1923 is equivalent 

 to one hog out of every six hogs in 

 the Corn Belt farm feed lots this year. 



Germany recently raised the tariff 

 on lard to $9.40 per 100 pounds. 

 Previous to February, 1933, the tariff 

 was only $1.08. 



Quality Milk Wins Suit 



(Continued from page 7) 



"Judgment is therefore rendered in 

 favor of the defendant against plain- 

 tiff for costs herein assessed at 

 $12.70." 



The effect of the decision is to out- 

 law further efforts by friends of the 

 dealers to collect money from the 

 Quality Milk Association until dealers 

 have paid the Association for milk de- 

 livered during the two week period. 



Reports from "rump" organization 

 members indicate general dissatisfac- 

 tion due to the fact that they received 

 only 79 cents per cwt. for milk, al- 

 though 75 per cent of their deliveries 

 were reported sold in the fluid milk 

 class. On the other hand the Quality 

 Milk Association which marketed only 

 about 25 per cent of its production lo- 

 cally as fluid milk through the Stur- 

 tevant Company, Midvale, Mississippi 

 Dairy and others, paid producer mem- 

 bers 84 cents per cwt. by developing 

 an attractive outlet for surplus sweet 

 cream. 



In has been reported that the bot- 

 tle exchange of the of the dealers as- 

 sessed all members $25 each to fight ' 

 the Quality Milk Association and that : 

 an additional assessment of $15 was 

 made on a second appeal for funds. 



Producers point out that when milk 

 was retailing in the Quad Cities for V 

 ten cents per quart farmers only real- "'; 

 ized an average of $1.00 per cwt., • 

 whereas milk is now retailing at six 

 cents and the Quality Milk Associa- 

 tion has been able to pay its members 

 84 cents per cwt. 



' "y-. 



