ANALYSIS OF TOBACCO GROWERS* ASSOCIATION 



101 



not to exclude these two groups of customers; but in effect it pre- 

 vented sales, as these exporters and leaf dealers are accustomed and 

 equipped to buy tobacco in the green state. 



Table 41.— Sales of tobacco of the 1922-1924 crops to the larger tooacco 



companies 1 



Buyer 



1922 



1923 



1924 





American Tobacco Co 



Pounds 

 5, 132, 554 

 458, 507 

 9, 420, 091 

 39, 162, 482 

 24, 118, 925 

 69, 092, 008 



Per cent 

 3.48 

 .31 

 6.39 

 26.57 

 16.36 

 46.89 



Pounds 



Per cent 



Pounds 

 54,096 



Per cent 

 0.17 



Imperial Tobacco Co 



27, 446 

 21, 187, 117 

 41, 588, 998 

 43, 031, 222 

 49, 073, 742 



0.02 

 13.68 

 26.85 

 27.78 

 31.67 





Export Leaf Tobacco Co 



417, 192 



2 12,957,879 



2 10, 104, 123 



3 7, 512, 615 



1.34 



Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co 



R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.. 



41.74 

 32.55 



All others 



24 20 







Total 



147, 384, 557 



100. 00 



154, 908, 525 



100. 00 



31, 045, 905 



100 00 









1 As some of the association sales data are missing from the association files it was not possible to bring 

 the sales data up to date or show them in more detail. For this reason the data given in the above-named 

 document are used. 



2 To Sept. 1, 1925. 



3 To Feb. 28, 1925. 



Federal Trade Commission Eeport, Senate Document 34 {12, p. 40). 



Two large tobacco manufacturing companies, Liggett & Myers and 

 R. J. Keynolds & Co., which at all times bought tobacco from the 

 association, purchased less green tobacco during the last three years. 

 In 1922 these two companies purchased in the green state 30.7 per 

 cent of the total quantity of tobacco received by the association. In 

 1923 and 1924 they purchased 20.1 and 16.4 per cent, respectively. 

 In 1925 the proportion was somewhat higher owing to the influence 

 on total sales of sun-cured tobacco sold in the green state. Both these 

 companies continued to purchase redried tobacco heavily. The de- 

 crease in the sales of green tobacco to these companies may have 

 been due to one or both of two reasons: (1) Several of the officers 

 and directors were financially interested in redrying association 

 tobacco and for this reason the sales staff may not have been as 

 diligent as they should have been in negotiating green sales; and 

 (2) one or both of these companies may have found that it was to 

 their advantage to purchase tobacco in the redried rather than in 

 the green state. 



Furthermore, the buyers of association tobacco did not always 

 take immediate delivery of the stock they purchased. They some- 

 times stored it in association warehouses for several months. No 

 charge for such storage was made by the association, but the asso- 

 ciation continued to pay storage, interest, and other carrying 

 charges. It would appear that, owing to its unenviable position of 

 dependence on the good will of the tobacco companies, the associa- 

 tion was forced to render many lands of services in order to promote 

 sales. 



In nearly all instances the prices obtained by the association for 

 redried tobacco were lower than the price obtained for green to- 

 bacco, after allowance for shrinkage and redrying charges had been 

 made. The prices of redried tobacco could not be raised in propor- 

 tion as carrying charges accumulated. Obviously in such circum- 

 stances it was to the advantage of these companies to allow the 

 association to store the tobacco until it was required by them. All 



