Canning Inpustry rrom Grower’s Stanppoint 1253 
the population in the cities depend almost wholly on canned goods 
the larger part of the year, and the canning business has grown 
beyond the expectations of the best informed men in the business. 
Undoubtedly, it will continue in its growth. That the business has 
proven profitable is to be seen by the large fortunes acquired by 
those interested in canning and preserving. 
The canning business of this country represents enormous crops, 
wonderful manufacturing output, superior salesmanship, and, 
while the cost of staple articles of food is ever increasing at an 
alarming rate— notwithstanding all the efforts that have been 
made to increase the production of the soil— such increase in the 
cost of living cannot be laid to the canner. On the other hand, 
he is a public benefactor. 
There are exceptions to the rule, however, in the canning busi- 
ness. What I will say now represents the grower’s interest and 
the unfairness on the part of the canner in his business dealings 
with the grower, and I trust that it will not be taken as antago- 
nistic. We, as growers, are all interested in the welfare and ad- 
vancement of the canning industry in this state, and are in a large 
measure dependent upon the canneries for the sale of our products. 
RELATION BETWEEN THE GROWER AND CANNER 
The canners have made it possible for us to grow thousands of 
tons of perishable fruit and produce, and that at a contract price; 
but have they always been just and fair in their business dealings 
with the grower? I think not. On the other hand, has the grower 
always been fair with the canner; has he delivered all of the crop 
contracted for? No, he has not. I shall say something in regard 
to this later. 
Where climatic conditions and soil are adapted to the culture 
of “uch crops as tomatoes, peas, corn — in fact all vegetable crops 
— anda fair price is paid by the canners, many growers have 
made money. But, on the other hand, there are localities where 
canners and perservers have taken advantage of individual grow- 
ers in price cutting, unfairness of contract, failing to furnish 
crates to harvest and deliver the crop, refusing to pay the grower 
for his produce until the canned products were sold, thereby mak- 
ing the grower help finance their business — in fact their contracts 
