Oic RURAL. NEW-YORKER 
587 
Farmers and the Food Problem 
.V SERIOUS SITUATION.—The whole official 
and commercial population of tIli^^ country is now 
frantically appealing to the American farmers, for 
patriotic reasons, to increase the supply of food to 
feed the people of the world during the continuance 
of the war. We may well feel alarm for our food 
bins. Our present supply is .short, and. according 
to latest estimates, our next crop of Winter wheat 
will be fifty million Ini.shels short of the last crop. 
Seed and fertilizer’s are scarce and high in iirice. 
Farm machinery is expensive. Farm labor is not to 
be had. Farmers have had two bad years. Two 
years back crops were large and prices were low. 
1‘rodacers in many cases did not get the cost of 
produciion. Last year tlie crop was a failure in 
many sections and the .season was a total loss. 
Not a few growers are obliged to aSk renewal of 
last year’s credits in addition to new accommoda¬ 
tions for this season’s needs. 
THE FARMER'S SHARE.—'fhe coiintiy never 
iippealed in vain to the patriotic service of it.s 
farms. In time of need, the farmer has always re- 
spf)nded to tlie duty call of the counti’y. lie will 
do so now. Whethei’ in the field of battle or in the 
field of production, the farmer can be relied upon 
to do his share. 
UONHIT IONS OF I’ROHUCTION.—Rut the coun¬ 
try has yet to realize that production is an economic 
problem. Wlien production is made profitable, food 
will l)e produced in abundance. While distiibution 
is maintained as a hazai’d, the food sui)ply must 
be limited. Farmers have found that they fare 
better with average production than with large 
acreage and bumper crops. Tender the present con¬ 
ditions, the initial investment Avill 'be heavy. The 
culture and luirvest wilt be unusually expensive in 
case the labor can be secured at any price. The 
(■.•inner Avill take his hazard on Aveather and insect 
enemies as usual. He will take tiie risk on cajutal 
.and labor. Ho Avill take chances on co.st price to 
the consumer. He asks jn’oteetion only from the 
speculator and manipulator. He wants to know now 
what part of the consumer’s dollar Avill be I’eturned 
to him. Is 115 cents yet to be his portion? Is i»a 
triotism to be paid in .‘Uwent dollars? 
THE PROHTTIER'S CHAN. i.’.s.—Tlie statc.smeu 
and captains of industry wlio no'.,- d'-mand, in the 
name of patriotism, that wa>te pasture fields be 
cultivated at the farmers’ risk in order to insure 
!i full supply of food, in.sist that vested interests 
in food distribution must be protected and that the 
sp.'culator in food must not be disturbed. The 
banker will take his full di.scount. The merchant 
will exact his full pndit. The manufacturer will 
jirotect himself by setting a price for his goods high 
enough to cover all costs and his ])roiit. The rail- 
ro;id Avill exact a guarantee for tlie freight before 
it will move a car. The freight tariff will be high 
enough to cover all expenses, interest and profits. 
Every man Avho touches the food from the time it 
leaves the farm until it arrives at the consumer’s 
door, gets more out of it for the time and labor 
devoted to it than the farmer Avho produced it, 
Ever.v one of them knows just what he is to get. The 
f.T’iner alone takes all the chances. This process 
is a discouragement of production. The short sup¬ 
ply of food is a natural and hievitable consequence. 
I’atrioUic appeals Avill not change it. Profit in pro¬ 
duction will alone permanently increase the food 
supilv. 
APPiiALS TO PAl’RIOTISM.—The appeals to 
patriotic instincts should be addressed to the mid¬ 
dlemen and not to farmer.s'. Everybody knoAvs that 
it costs more to produce food than to deliver it. 
Let the proportion of rewards be reversed. Let the 
State or Federal gOA'ernments through their mar¬ 
ket departments guarantee to the farmer that the 
cost of distribution Avill not exceed o5 cents of the 
consumer’s dollar, and that whether the pi’ice be 
liigh or loAV, the farmer Avill get G5 cents of the 
dollar paid by the city family. This Avill be a fair 
di\ision. If this iiroportion is not considered fair 
let us fix a proposition that is fair, but let us know 
delinitely what pereentage of the consumer’s dol¬ 
lar the farmer can depend on. The government 
Avould assume no risk. It would simply see that 
food be economically and efficiently distributed. It 
Avould only demand that the cost of distribution 
does not exceed a reasonable charge for the .service. 
With this equitable division of the consumer’s dol¬ 
lar, AA’e would have an abundant supply of food. 
While the gov’ernment protects the speculator and 
gambler in food in an unfair share of the rewards, 
appeals to farmers in the name of ]>atriotism luiA’e 
a hollow sound. If heard and heeded by the far¬ 
mer, disaster to the farms Avould sooner or later 
folloAAa . 
SHORT SUl'PLIES.—The situation is needlessly 
serious. The food supply of the Avorld is .short. It 
is as inii ortant to us to feed our allies in Eiirope 
as to feed our oavu soldiers. The men in the trench¬ 
es of France and Egypt and Russia are noAv fight¬ 
ing our battles. Thej- must be fed. The time for 
planting is upon us. but avo have no right to ap- 
jieal to farmers to assume all the burden, and then 
leaA-e them to the mercy of speculators, q'he time 
for the government to speak is noAv. Not a day 
should be lost. Uome. gentlemen, squeak up. If the 
farmers make the iin-estment, do. the work, and 
take the chances, Avill you guarantee them that 
they Avill not be cheated and swindled in the divis¬ 
ion of the ultimate .selling price? The government 
that neglects or refuses this assurance has no right 
to ajipeal to farmers to feed the AAorld in the name 
of pati’iotism. fi’he genei’iil as.surances f»r prophe¬ 
cies of profitable iirices is not enou,gh. In con¬ 
nection AA'ith jiatriotic appeals, siu'h assurances are 
not fair. They AA’ill not be entirely effective. It 
is not difficult to ascertain the approxim.ite cost 
of distribution. Let the. efficiency and economy 
committees find Avhat it is, state it. and give us de¬ 
finite assurances that the co.st of distribution Avill 
1)0 kept Avithin the limits so fixed: and that whether 
the price be large or small the producer Avill get 
his allotted share. Even then he takes all the 
chances, but Avith such assurances the American 
farmer Avill feed the world. 
Senator Towner and the Milk Bill 
If Ave had a few more legislators in Albany like 
Senator ToAA'iier of Dutchess County, the farmer 
Avould receiA’e more consideration in the State 
Le.gi.slature. 
Early in the season, Stmator fi'owner iuti’oduced 
the milk bill to authorize the establishment of a 
milk market and pasteurizing jilant in the City 
of New York. It has remained ipiietly pigeon- 
lioled in the Finance (’ommittia.' ever since. I.ast 
Aveek Senator q'oAvner moved the discharge of the 
committee and demanded a roll call of the Senate 
on the bill. While the sergeant-at-arms Avas cor- 
raling the members for the vote. Senator Elon R. 
Rrown exercised his jiarty leadershij) pOAA’er to sus¬ 
pend the rules, force a recess and call a Republi¬ 
can i>arty caucu.s. In this caucus Sentitor Towner 
forced a promise th;it the Finance Committee Avould 
consider the bill and make a report Avithin a Aveek. 
This bill is offensive to the headers Avho are al- 
Avays found on the side of big financial interests. 
There is no trickery or subterfuge in it; there could 
be no OA’asions of its lu'fo’isions if passed; it AA'ould 
take milk from the producers and distribute it jias- 
teurized in bottles through the stores to families 
at from 2c to .3c a quart cheaper than milk is now 
being distributed. This saving Avould come en¬ 
tirely out of the present cost of distribution. It 
is a measure, pure and sinq)le, for the interest of 
producer and consumer. It is opposed by the milk 
trust, and by all the friends and allies of si)ecial 
interests .generally. If it pretended to do something 
for agricultural interests, but Avas so constructed 
that it could effect nothing, it could be reported out 
by the committee and pass the Legi.slature. With 
the definite provisions to reduce the cost of milk 
and to disturb the milk trust, it has violent oppo¬ 
sition. No bill could more definitely test the sin¬ 
cerity of the leaders at Albany toward agricultural 
interests than this measure. It puts the principle 
of economic distribution straight up to the hiAA'- 
niakers. fi’o pass it puts the State on record in 
favor of economic distribution between producer 
and consumer, Avlthout regard to A'ested interests 
of the milk tru.st. To refu.se to p.-iss it, eipially 
jilaces the State Legislature on I’ecord as opposed to 
any reform in the distribution of food that Avill in¬ 
terfere Avith the vested intei’ests that uoav hold a 
monopoly in distribution to the detriment of both 
produc’er ami consumer. 
It Avill be Avorth something to have this record. 
'Whatever pretense may be indulged in, in the form 
of other bills, this one defines the fundamental 
princiiiles. There has 'been more individual de¬ 
mand from country and city for this bill than for 
any other one measure before the Legi.slature this 
year. We yet btdieve that whether the committee 
reported favorably or unfaA’orably, there are votes 
enough in the Senate to pass it. Anyway, Ave want 
Senators to stand up and be counted on it. When 
these A'otes are counted, the plain people will know 
their friends. 
The Second Wicks Bill 
ISSUES INVOIA’ED.—It is important that far¬ 
mers understand the fundamental principles affected 
by the proposed Wicks le.gislation of this year. 
There are two directly opposite and conflicting 
principles invoh'ed. They are: That distribution is 
strictly a private bu.siness problem. That a con¬ 
cern once established as a dealer or speculator in 
food products must not be disturbed. The vested 
interest must be protected. Speculators may buy as 
cheap as they can, majiipulate conditions and prices 
as much as they plea.se, and finally charge con¬ 
sumers all they can get. They take the chance of 
the gambler and if the consumer cannot pay AA'hat 
they demand she has the privilege of going hun¬ 
gry. If the producer doesn't like Avhat they pay, 
ho can go out of business. 
The o]iposing princii)le is: That the regulation of 
distribution is a State function. That the Shite 
.should regulate the assembling, grading, packing, 
transportation, storing and sale of food products. 
That all sales should be public, and prices ijuoted 
by the State. That the channel of distribution 
mu.st lead from the producer direct to the con¬ 
sumer and that .speculation, manipulation and gam¬ 
bling must be kept out of this distribution chan¬ 
nel. Tiiat by economy in distribution and in elim¬ 
ination of Avaste. cost to the consumer is reduced 
.•ind consunqition increa.sed and at the same time 
l)rodnction is increased by better roAA'ards to the 
farmer. 
THE DEPARTMENT'S PRINCIPLE.—Men Avho 
believe in the second proposition helped organize 
the Department of Foods and Markets and have 
stood by it throu.irh thick sind thin. It Avas or¬ 
ganized to put these principles into effect. Men 
AA’ho are opposed to this, and stand for the first 
pi’inciple, are naturally opposed to the Deiiart- 
ment. 
THE OPPOSITION.—From the first these dif¬ 
ferences huA’e been apparent. The opposition to the 
Department has been the one consistent element 
that has nin through all the legislation proposed 
to destroy it during the past three .sessions of the 
Legi.slature, including the present year. They real¬ 
ize that if the Depai’tment be permitted to con¬ 
duct experiments in distribution and set a stand¬ 
ard of cost ft)!’ distribution gambling in food sup¬ 
plies Avill luiA’e ti) stop. It is a direct challenge to 
men who have gi’oAA'n rich and poAverful in the 
food distributing 'busine.ss. For this reason the 
fight on the Dejtartment has I)een bitter and per¬ 
sistent, It is conducted by the strongest combina¬ 
tion of men and money that the Avorld has eA'er 
known. ?!o far this combination hits been defeated 
by the determined support of the plain farmers of 
th£' State. While there .are .some notable exceptions 
in the Legislature, officialdoni has been generally 
against the Deiiartment; and the undercurrent of 
opposition has been particularly qiersistent in agri¬ 
cultural f emi-ofliclal and bureaucractic positions. If 
any man Avants to knoAA* the causes, a short exper¬ 
ience in official po.sition Avill convince him of the 
power of big intei’ests to smooth the way for 
tho.se who folloAV the trails that have been blazed 
THE FARMER.S’ POWER.—^I'he complete defeat 
of the fii’st M icks bill aa’sis the fir.st real legislatiA'e 
jolt the fai’iners of this State eA'er gaA'e the .special 
intere.sts and their friends in the Legislature. They 
AA'ere stunned for a time, but they kuoAV the game 
of tiring out the opposition Avith one attack after 
another; and .so they come back Avith a .second 
Wicks bill, changed and modified, Avith some of the 
Avoi’st features eliminated, but yet Avith the old 
pi’inciple of protection to the special and specula- 
Ha'C interests presei’A’ed. The old bill aa'us devi.seil 
by the big interests'to tie the hands of farmers, 
fi’he Avires between Neiv Yoi’k and Albany iire now 
hot AA'ith daily demands to slip the old features into 
the new bill. All the tricks are Avorking to do the 
old things in a new Avay. They haA’e confused some 
f;irm intere.sts Avitli insignificant details and pro¬ 
tests against individual appointments. The big in¬ 
terests look to fundamentals. If the bill iiasses, 
they Avill .’idminister it. .\t the very time* Avheii 
the nation is alarmed about its food .supply, and 
frantic appeals :ire made to the farmer to increase 
production, our legislative leaders are playing .small 
politics. Instead of encouraging production by a 
comprehen.sive and economic system of distribution 
they conspire to protect and preserve the specuhitor 
at the exi)ense of producer and consumer. When 
the movement .should be forward in a development 
of the Depai’tment to encourage production, they 
propose a step backward. 
“OUT OF I’OLITICS.”—The excuse for this new 
bill is the pretense of a desire to get the Agricul- 
tunil Department out of politics. Everybody real¬ 
izes the need of such reform, and the pretense has 
AA-on the approval of some men avIio Avould otherAvise 
oppose the bill. Rut if the purpose Avere sincere 
(Continued on page ,597) 
