THE RELATION OF COTTON BUYING TO COTTON GROWING. 15 
adopt other improvements advised by the Department of Agri- 
culture. 
The general underlying fact is that most of the farmers are unac- 
customed to take the precautions that are necessary to preserve 
uniform stocks and have no adequate conception of the need of such 
precautions. Moreover, they are not likely to get such a concep- 
tion, except through a long educational process, unless the issue is 
made more practical and direct by greater discrimination in buying. 
The work of the department is of an educational character, but the 
information that the department can give the farmer is not likely 
to be used when it means additional care and effort without any 
corresponding advantage. When the farmer asks how much more 
his long-staple crop will bring if he pulls out all of the short-staple 
plants in the field, he can get no direct assurance. He can be assured 
that his cotton will be worth more, but not that he can get more, for 
the chances are that the buyer will be unable to detect the admixture 
of short cotton. But if the farmer knew that his field was to be 
inspected and that the presence of short-staple plants would be 
detected and would result in his receiving a lower price for his crop, 
Ke would not hesitate about taking the trouble to pull them out. 
Farmers are willing enough to adopt easier methods or crops that 
can be raised more cheaply, but the production of good cotton 
requires additional attention, something beyond what the farmer 
has been accustomed to give in raising short staples, and some positive 
inducement becomes necessary or the extra care will not be taken. 
INJUSTICE OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF BUYING. 
The present system of buying without adequate discrimination 
means the same average price for lots of cotton that differ greatly 
in value. Doubtless it is an easier and more convenient system for 
the buyers to take their cotton at flat prices and classify it after- 
wards into the different qualities required by their various customers. 
But, whatever the commercial advantages of this system, it is cer- 
tainly unwise and unjust in its relation to the farmer. It takes 
what belongs to the good farmer and gives it to the poor farmer. 1 
The farmer who raises cotton above the average in quality is mulcted 
to make up for the loss on cotton that is below the average. When 
the nature of the system is considered, it is easy to understand that 
the general tendency has been toward the growing of inferior cotton 
rather than to the taking of extra pains from which no advantage 
could be gained. 
No individual buyer, of course, nor any organization of buyers, 
is to be held responsible for the present system. Buyers, like other 
1 For specific instances of injustice and loss to farmers resulting from the present system of marketing, 
see Sherman, W. A., Taylor, Fred, and Brand, C. J., already cited. 
