COOPERATIVE CITRUS-FRUIT MARKETING AGENCY. 7 
perhaps it was considered an inevitable transportation risk, but with 
a diminished demand it began to assume serious proportions. Buyers 
demanded better quality and freedom from decay, and loss in transit 
sometimes wiped out the small margin remaining to the grower. 
The result was a series of disastrous seasons. The situation became 
most acute from 1 890 to 1 893 . These are commonly referred to as l ' red 
ink" years; that is, returns were often made to the grower in the 
form of a debit written, as is customary, in red. In other words, 
many shipments failed to pay packing, freight, and marketing charges. 
The larger a grower's shipments, the more deeply in debt to the dealer 
handling his crop he might find himself. 
As was natural, the growers considered the marketing system re- 
sponsible for their troubles. During the early years of the industry 
oranges were bought outright by dealers who shipped them to whole- 
salers in the larger markets. This system proved profitable both to 
the dealers and the growers. Several large shipping and marketing 
concerns developed in southern California, and by 1890 the business 
was practically controlled by five or six such organizations. 
As the demand slackened the business of these concerns became 
more speculative, losses were more common, and the prices offered 
the growers dropped below what they considered a fair return. In 
fact, if conditions were especially unfavorable, it was impossible for the 
grower to sell his crop for cash. These same firms, therefore, devel- 
oped the business of packing and marketing oranges for the growers on 
a commission basis. This was also unsatisfactory, and often resulted 
in "red ink" returns. Moreover, some growers snipped their fruits to 
eastern commission merchants on consignment. Poor results were 
generally obtained from this system. Markets were glutted in many 
cases, decay was common, and fruit often sold for less than freight 
charges. 
Although, then as now, most of the commission firms were reli- 
able, some unreliable concerns actively solicited business. A grower, 
without experience in shipping fruit, was likely to be misguided by 
the inducements of firms of this class. Once his fruit was in the 
hands of the commission merchant, the grower was absolutely depend- 
ent upon the merchant's integrity for fair treatment. It was a com- 
paratively simple matter for a dishonest merchant to manipulate 
the date of sale so as to make it appear that the fruit had sold on a 
low market or to misrepresent the condition of the shipment, and no 
doubt growers were often defrauded in this manner. However, the 
unfavorable conditions existing were not due entirely to chicanery 
on the part of the dealers, but to fundamental weaknesses in the 
marketing system. 
Similarly, the so-called buyers' trust has been given undue prom- 
inence as a cause of the failure of the growers to make reasonable 
profits during this period. It was claimed that the firms buying and 
shipping fruit in southern California agreed to divide the territory be- 
tween them, and that, if more than one firm bid for a grower's fruit, 
the offers were suspiciously similar. (2) The buyers' trust, however, 
if such a combination actually existed, was an effect rather than a 
cause of existing conditions. When the supply of oranges exceeded 
the demand it is possible that agreements between the buyers with 
regard to price or territory might have been entered into in isolated 
instances: but, so long as the demand for citrus fruit continued 
