ASSOCIATION 113 



should be pointed out that the large tobacco companies were repre- 

 sented on the various boards of trade. Special funds were solicited 

 for the printing and publication of articles attacking the association. 

 Pamphlets were circulated among the farmers. Many of these 

 publications ostensibly aimed to acquaint farmers with the advan- 

 tages of the auction system of marketing but they largely degen- 

 erated into vindictive and defamatory statements against the asso- 

 ciation. The large companies contributed directly or indirectly to 

 these publications (12, p. 70) . Some of the opposing organizations 

 were accused of going so far as to furnish counsel in support of 

 members against whom the association had taken legal action for 

 nondelivery of tobacco. 



At least some of the large tobacco manufacturers were unfriendly 

 and refused to buy from the association. This made it impossible 

 to sell tobacco promptly and to make final payments to members 

 within a reasonable time. Many members were entirely dependent 

 upon returns from their tobacco for a livelihood. The attitude of 

 the comparatively few large dominating tobacco companies was one 

 of the greatest problems which faced the association. The Federal 

 Trade Commission found no evidence of their having taken any 

 active measures to combat the association, and the commission 

 expressed the opinion that the two companies which refused to 

 patronize the association were justified in purchasing all of their 

 leaf requirements on the auction floors, if they preferred to buy there 

 (12). It would appear, however, that the refusal of these companies 

 to purchase from the association was largely instrumental in causing 

 ultimate failure. It was among the local representatives of these 

 companies that the association met with its most severe and most 

 effective opposition. The large tobacco companies disclaimed all 

 part in the actions of their leaf buyers, and some companies claim 

 to have advised their buyers to take an indifferent attitude and not 

 to issue statements attacking the association. That this advice was 

 not effective, even if it was given seriously, is seen by the findings of 

 the Federal Trade Commission. 



The buyer representatives of certain companies stated at every 

 opportunity that the companies they represented refused to bu}^ 

 from the association and that it was bound to fail. They encour- 

 aged and induced members to become disloyal by paying somewhat 

 higher prices for " split-crop " tobacco. They encouraged farmers 

 to believe that the association could not and would not pay them 

 for tobacco delivered. They took every legitimate measure to cause 

 members to lose faith in their organization. Buyers for the com- 

 panies that purchased heavily from the association also took an 

 active part in opposing the association. Many professional and 

 business people in both country and town were influenced by this 

 propaganda; many who previously had been in favor of the co- 

 operative movement became either indifferent or actively opposed 

 to it. 



Many bankers and " time merchants " were opposed to the asso- 

 ciation and helped indirectly to wreck it by encouraging and forcing 

 members to break their contracts. Many of the baiikers pursued 

 this policy because they were afraid of losing the accounts of the 



76534—29 8 



