18 BULLETIX 937, U. S. DEPAETMEXT OF AGRICULTUEE. 
Paul, Minn., but instead of operating on the Minneapolis grain ex- 
change (the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce), it has established 
a market place in St. Paul. 
The Montana Grain Growers of Great Falls, Mont., organized in 
1918 tmder the laws of Montana, is another organization which in 
many ways has sotight to emtdate the Canadian companies. It has 
now about 20 country elevators under its control with approximately 
3,000 members. 
In the Pacific Xorthwest the Tri- State Terminal Co. of Seattle, 
Wash., furnishes another example of line-house operation of farmers' 
elevators. This company was formed in 1911. The annual statement 
of the company for the year ending May 31. 1919. shows a paid-up 
capital stock of $271,920 and a surplus of $34,302.75. It has a mem- 
bership of about 2.500, in addition to a number of local farmers' 
elevator companies owning shares of its capital stock. Over 20 coun- 
try elevators are operated by it as a part of the line-hotise system. 
Among other organizations which serve or are preparing to serve 
the interests of farmers' elevators in the terminal markets are the 
Farmers' Commission Co. of Hutchinson. Kans. ; the Farmers' Ele- 
vators Commission of Minneapolis, Minn. : the Farmers' Terminal 
Elevator Co. of Sioux City. Iowa ; the National Cooperative Co. of 
Omaha. Nebr. ; the Equity Union Grain Co. of Kansas City, Mo. ; and 
the Michigan State Farm Bureau Elevator Exchange of Lansing, 
Mich. 
FUNCTIONS OF COOPERATIVE GRAIN MARKETING 
ORGANIZATIONS. 
In the case of farmers' elevators of all types in this country and in 
Canada there has been no material difference in their methods of 
operation as distinguished from the methods of private interests, 
except, of course, with respect to policies growing out of ownership 
of the marketing facilities by a large ntmiber of actttal grain growers. 
Xo attempt has been made to secure control over crops of members, 
but each grower member has been left free to dispose of his crop when 
and to whom he chose. The whole effort in regard to cooperative 
marketing has been directed toward having the grower perform for 
himself certain functions of marketing which previottsly had been 
performed by others, but ttsing exactly the same kind of marketing 
machinery. The only change is the stibstitution of cooperative 
ownership of middleman facilities for private ownership. If the 
idea of capital stock ownership by growers who are also patrons of 
the elevator company and the plan of distributing earnings among 
the members on the basis of patronage furnished were eliminated 
there would be nothing to distinguish the present day farmers' ele- 
A'ator company from any other corporation engaged in the grain 
business. 
