Iht RURAL NEW-YORKER 
1053 
A Dividend Stock 
P RESIDENT BIGLER of the Holstein-Friesian 
Association expressed a sentiment at the last 
meeting of the milk committee that every dairy 
farmer can endorse. He said in effect that no prog¬ 
ress can be made towards dairy unity while dairy¬ 
men are fighting each other in groups, and that the 
business of inciting dairy farmers to ill will, envy 
and hatred should be made unpopular. We agree 
with this sentiment exactly. The actions of men in 
public positions are properly subject to review and 
criticism. The public welfare demands it; but the 
analysis of actions and the discussions of principles 
and policies serves the public better than persona' 
vituperation and abuse. 
The propaganda to develop friction and hard feel¬ 
ings and ill will among dairy farmers has gone on 
for several years. It has embittered communities, 
separated neighbors and alienated friends. It has 
not sold an extra quart of milk or increased the price 
of milk a penny. It never will. By all means let us 
heal the wounds it has opened, and make the work 
of promoting frenzy and strife unpopular. 
Co-operation cannot thrive in an atmosphere of 
suspicion and distrust. It can live only in an en¬ 
vironment of good will, confidence and®mutual help. 
Dictators destroy the true spirit of co-operation. 
Force and coercion and monopoly choke it to death. 
It came into existence as a protest against tyranny. 
Co-operation must be voluntary and mutual. It 
must be fair. It must be truthful. It must be just. 
It must inspire confidence, justify trust and cement 
friendships. 
Leaders come and go, but neighbors live on to¬ 
gether. We need a return of the old fraternal .senti¬ 
ment in the dairy business. God never ordained 
that all dairymen should think alike, but the grace 
of charity is infinite. It pays bigger dividends than 
. envy and hate. 
June Milk Prices 
M ILK returns to producers for the month of 
June have been reported as follows: 
The League Pool net casli per 100 lbs. 3 per cent 
milk, 200-mile zone, $1.24. There was a charge of 8c 
for expenses and 10c for certificates, making gross 
returns $1.43 to the association. 
Some Northern New York cheese factories report 
net return of $1.64. 
Sheffield Farms Association report net cash re¬ 
turns of $1.75. 
The Eastern States report a net cash average of 
$1.50. 
The non-pool reports are not official, but are given 
as about $1.65. 
In Philadelphia the Class I price was $2.11, and 
the surplus price $1.55. 
In Detroit the Class I price was $3, and surplus 
$1.77. This for 3.5 per cent milk, or 20c per 100 lbs. 
above 3 per cent basis. 
In Grand Rapids, Class I, $2.60, and surplus $1.50. 
This also for 3.5 per cent test. 
In Flint, Mich., Class I price, $2.63, and surplus 
$1.77. Also 3.5 per cent test. 
Prices for Wool and Wool Clothing 
T HE Department of Agriculture has issued a 
statement by Chaides L. Luedtke and George T. 
Willingmyre on the relations between wool prices 
and the demand for clothing. A fair synopsis of 
this article is given below. Many of the facts here 
given will be new to our readers: 
To say that the present depression in the wool market 
is due to the operation of the law of supply and de- 
niand will hardly satisfy the Western wool grower who 
is today receiving 20 cents a pound, scoured basis, less 
for his wool than a year ago. 
The light demand from the textile mills, whoee lack of 
interest in turn has been due to the slowness of the 
yarn and cloth markets, is regarded as the primary 
cause for the decline in raw wool values. On the other 
hand, rhe slackening up of orders from the clothing man¬ 
ufacturers and kntting mills has affected the demand for 
yarn and cloth, while the retailer has adopted a hand- 
to-mouth policy, saying that the consumer is not buying. 
With world wool stocks at a low level and imports 
into the United States 54 per cent less during the 10 
months ending with April. 1924, than for the corre¬ 
sponding period of the previous year, coupled with the 
decreased number of sheep in the principal wool pro¬ 
ducing countries of the World a rathei* anomalous situ¬ 
ation is presented. 
Not only is the price of raw wool in this country 20 
cents a pound, scoured basis, less than a year ago, but 
the price in Boston is approximately 18 cents a pound 
lower than the London price, if we take into account 
the full amount of the import duty on wool. The 
ocean freight will increase this margin slightly more. 
The following price comparison will serve to illustrate 
the difference. The price in Boston right now of Ohio 
fine strictly combing wool is around $1.27% a pound, 
scoured basis. The price of Australian warp 64s at the 
London auctions on July 1 was 64d a pound, clean 
scoured, or *$1.15 a pound, which leaves a margin of 
only 12% cents to cover the cost of transportation and 
the import duty into the United States, which alone 
amounts to 31 cents a pound. 
„ Not only have imports declined as a result of the situ- 
tion, above described, but large quantities of foreign 
wools imported into the United States and held in bond 
have been re-exported, principally to England and Ger¬ 
many. During the 10 months beginning with July 1, 
1923. a total of 27,991,799 lbs. of foreign wool was re¬ 
exported fi'om the United States, according to the official 
returns compiled by the Department of Commerce. For 
the corresponding period of 1922-23 the re-exports of 
foreign wools amounted to only 2,697,785 lbs. The 
total imports of wool into the United States during the 
10 months ending April 30, 1924, amounted to 199,- 
966.323 lbs., as compared with 438,06S,044 lbs. import¬ 
ed during the corresponding 10 months of the previous 
year, or a decrease of 54 per cent. 
The unseasonable weather and uncertainty of demand 
of the past two seasons have resulted in the curtail¬ 
ment of orders for wool goods and clothing, followed by 
a general spirit of caution in the purchase of goods in 
all lines of business. A good many retailers still regard 
the price of clothing too high, but feel that any reduc¬ 
tions must take place in the manufacturers’ cost of 
them. The clothing manufacturer also feels that the 
price of clothing is too high, but contends that with 
the present wage scale it will be impossible to effect any 
economy in the cost of production. On the other hand, 
some of the clothing manufacturers and wholesale deal¬ 
ers feel that more efficient organization and manage¬ 
ment in the retail trade would make for a lower price 
to the consumer, while nearly all blame the consumer 
for his foibles and fussiness in the purchase of clothing. 
It is admittedly difficult to make a comparison be¬ 
tween the price of a given suit of clothes today and in 
1913. There have been changes in the kinds and qual¬ 
ity of cloth, to say nothing of the improved workman¬ 
ship and tailoring Avhich have taken place since 1913. 
However, the following comparisons will illustrate the 
increase in the costs of some of the principal items 
that go into the manufacture of a suit of clothes. 
The average price of fine staple territory wools in 
Boston in March, 1924, was $1.41 a pound, scoured 
basis, as compared with 59 cents i pound in March, 
1913, an increase of 139 per cent. Since March of this 
year the price of wool has dropped to a point where the 
average for May of this particular grade was only $1.33 
a pound, as against $1.53 in May, 1923, while the aver¬ 
age for the first three weeks in June has dropped still 
further, or to $1.29, the lowest price since May, 1922. 
Other grades of wool are selling at relatively the same 
ratio. The prices of wool goods, however, are not only 
relatively higher, but. show no reduction since the price 
of wool began to decline. Clay worsted diagonal, 16-oz. 
goods, which was sold by the manufacturer at $1.2375 
a yard in March, 1914, cost $3,015 a yard in March, 
1924, or an increase of 143.6 per cent. This price has 
remained in effect without change during the five 
months ending May, 1924, the last month for which 
these figures are available. The wholesale price of 11-oz. 
serge in May, 1914, was $1.0575 a yard, as against 
$2.40S a yard in May, 1924, an increase of 127 per cent. 
Here, too, the price shown for May has been in effect 
since the first of this year. It is recognized that the 
clothing being sold today was made from wool sold or 
manufactured into cloth last year, when a different 
price level for those materials prevailed. 
The value of the raw wool that enters into a suit of 
clothes is a comparatively small factor in the price of 
clothing. The average all-wool suit takes about 5 lbs. 
of wool. The difference between a low-priced and a 
high-priced suit is not therefore so much the amount of 
wool that enters into the suit as it is the construction of 
the cloth, quality of linings, etc., and the amount of 
labor used in the making of the cloth and the suit. In 
December, 1921, the value of the raw materials entering 
into a $35 suit of clothes at retail was 11 per cent of the 
total cost, which included the trimmings and parts not 
made of wool. The largest single item is the cost of 
labor, amounting to 44 per cent of the total cost of the 
suit. Of the remainder, 34 per cent represented over¬ 
head, and 11 per cent profit. These charges were dis¬ 
tributed as follows : Labor cost—textile mill, 11 per 
cent; clothing manufacturer, 18 per cent; retailer, 15 
per cent; overhead—textile mill, 4 per cent; clothing 
manufacturer, 16 per cent; retailer, 14 per cent; profit 
—'textile mill, 2 per cent; clothing manufacturer, 5 per 
cent, and retailer, 4 per cent. These proportions are 
probably not far off from the present distribution of 
costs, although a representative of the clothing industry 
stated that the present labor cost was probably not over 
16 or 17 per cent of the cost of a suit, instead of 18 per 
cent. 
The distribution of the cost of this $35 suit of cloth¬ 
ing between the textile mill, the manufacturer, and the 
retailer, gives the textile mill 17 per cent, the manu¬ 
facturer 39 per cent and the retailer 33 per cent. This 
means that the retailer’s cost of selling a $35 suit of 
clothes is $11.55, which includes labor, overhead and 
profit, or 59 per cent as much as the manufacturer re¬ 
ceives for making the suit out of raw materials worth 
$3.85. Direct sale by the manufacturer to the retailer 
is assumed. It is in the retail distribution of clothes 
that the greatest differences in cost markings will be 
found. While there are many fluctuations in the price 
of raw wool, the wage scales are so standardized that 
the cost of producing goods is more or less uniform in 
different mills, with due allowance, of course, for dif¬ 
ferences in overhead, etc. The same thing may be said 
of the clothing manufacturer. The price he pays for 
his goods is more or less uniform, while his labor costs 
are again determined by a standardized scale of wages, 
which is uniform among the industry as a whole. The 
retailer’s costs, however, are determined by many and 
variable factors, depending upon the city, location of 
the store, total amount of sales, etc. 
Last year the amount of wool used in women’s sweat¬ 
ers and knit wear was a considerable item. This year 
there has been a change in the style from wool to silk, 
which is by no means a small factor, not alone in the 
wool situation, but in cotton as well. Artificial silk 
particularly has become a factor. We are really dealing 
with a new textile when it is realized that the produc¬ 
tion of artificial silk in this country has increased from 
about 1,566,000 lbs. in 1913 to 35,380,000 lbs. in 1923. 
Adding to this the imports of approximately 4,000,000 
lbs. of artificial silk gives us a total consumption in 
1923 of nearly 40,000.000 lbs. The estimated consump¬ 
tion of raw silk in 1923 was approximately 49,000,000 
lbs., as compared with 28,000,000 in 1913. ‘ The sale of 
men’s suits with an extra pair of trousers is regarded 
by many as a factor in reducing the number of suits 
sold, and indirectly the amount of wool used in the 
manufacture of men’s clothing. 
Much has been heard recently about the automobile 
as one of the factors in the reduced consumption of 
clothing. The fact that 70 per cent of all automobiles 
are said to be sold on time is regarded by many as evi¬ 
dence that their owners must of necessity economize in 
other directions in order to meet their regular monthly 
payments. The cost of maintaining an automobile is 
also a factor. There is, however, no statistical or other 
means of measuring the effect which the automobile 
has had upon the purchasing power of its owners in 
other directions. The total number of automobiles pro¬ 
ved in the United States in 1923 was around 4,000.- 
000. having a retail value of approximately $4,000,000,- 
000. The total number of cars registered in the United 
States in 1923 was 15,500.000. The automobile is un¬ 
questionably a big factor in our economic life. How¬ 
ever, the average automobile owner appears to be as 
well dressed as his less fortunate brother the pedestrian. 
High rents or the forced purchase of houses at high 
prices on the installment plan is also an important fac¬ 
tor in the consumer’s budget. There is also the phono¬ 
graph and, more recently, the radio, not to mention 
numberless other personal and household articles which 
have made a new demand on the American purse. The 
fXSk 0 output alone ha « increased from 
,> 24100,000 in 1920 to an estimated production in 1924 
of $350,000,000. In the absence of increased income, 
the purchase off these things means either reduced savings 
or a readjustment in the expenditures for other articles. 
Data are not sufficient to show accurately how these ex¬ 
penditures affect the expenditures for clothing. 
It is granted that the purchasing power of the per¬ 
sons employed in the manufacture of automobiles and 
radio supplies represents a big factor in the consump¬ 
tion of woolen goods and clothing. It is doubtful, how¬ 
ever, if the per capita consumption of clothing by per¬ 
sons employed in the mechanical and manufacturing in¬ 
dustries will average as high as that of other occupa¬ 
tions. This raises the question, what group of wage 
earners and salaried employes buys the bulk of-the 
ready-made clothing? Is it the 12,000,000 persons en¬ 
gaged in the manufacturing and mechanical industries, 
or the 4,000,000 persons engaged in professional, clerical 
and public service? In other words, does the man whose 
occupation requires him to wear a regular business unit 
every day in the year buy a greater number of suits 
than the man who is employed in a factory, or work¬ 
shop, where cheaper working clothes may be worn? 
No attempt is made to say what the future holds in 
store for the American wool grower, except to point out 
that the present low price cannot continue in the face 
of reduced wool supplies, unless a radical change takes 
place in the consumption of wool clothing by the Amer¬ 
ican public. 
The New Jersey Sale by Weight Law 
A NUMBER of our New Jersey readers, many of 
ffhem having a roadside market, have asked 
about the new law covering weights and measures in 
New Jersey. This is known as die “Sale by Weight” 
act, and it makes a number of changes in the law. 
The following statement has been prepared by the 
State Department of Weights and Measures: 
Chapter 59, P. L. N. J., 1924, provides that: 
All commodities heretofore commonly offered for 
sale, or sold by dry measure or by basket, barrel or con¬ 
tainer of any kind, except as hereinafter provided, shall 
be offered for sale or sold upon the basis of avoirdupois 
net weight or by numerical count only, and it shall 
thereafter be unlawful for anyone to use or employ any 
dry capacity measure, basket, barrel or container of any. 
kind as a means of determining the amounts or quan¬ 
tities of any such commodities offered for sale, or sold • 
provided, however, that the provisions of this act shall 
not be construed to apply to fruits and vegetables sold 
in the original standard container, nor to vegetables 
which by common custom are offered for sale, or sold by 
the bunch ; nor shall the provisions of this act be con¬ 
strued to apply to fresh berries and to other small fruits 
which are customarily offered for sale and sold by the 
box, basket or other receptacle, except, however, when 
such fresh berries or such other small fruits are offered 
for sale, or sold in bulk, in which case the provisions of 
this act shall apply to the extent that such freeli berries 
and such other small fruits shall be offered for sale and 
sold by avoirdupois net weight only; provided, further, 
however, that all fresh berries and such other small 
fruits when offered for sale, or sold, shall be so offered 
or sold in boxes, baskets or receptacles of uniform size 
to hold one quart or one pint dry measure only, which 
said boxes, baskets or other receptacles shall be uni¬ 
formly and evenly filled throughout.” 
This law is effective on and after July 1, 1924, and 
is enforceable by the State Superintendent of Weights 
and Measures, his duly authorized assistants and all 
county and municipal superintendents of weights and 
measures. 
The penalties for violation are: $25 to $50 for first 
offense; $50 to $100 for second offense, and $100 to $200 
for each subsequent offense. 
The term “commodities” shall be construed to mean 
articles, other than liquids, which are capable of being 
measured by dry capacity measure and which have been 
at any time prior to the passage of this act wold by dry 
capacity measure in this State. 
The term “dry capacity measure” within the meaning 
of this act shall be construed to be the bushel, half¬ 
bushel, peck, half-peck, quarter-peck, quart, pint, half¬ 
pint and similar measures. 
The term “original standard container” shall be con¬ 
strued to mean and include only barrels, boxes, baskets, 
hampers or similar containers, the dimensions or capac¬ 
ity of which is established by law of this State or by act 
of Congress, the contents of which have not been re¬ 
moved or repacked, and upon which is plainly and con¬ 
spicuously marked the net quantity of contents thereof 
in terms of weight, measure or numerical count. 
The purpose of this law is to establish the practice 
of buying and selling dry commodities on a basis of 
avoirdupois net weight or numerical count. 
It abolishes the dry capacity measure from use in 
trade in New Jersey. 
It permits the sale of certain commodities by the 
bunch, such a« beets, radishes and other vegetables 
which by custom have been sold in this manner. 
It allows the sale of berries in standard containers, 
as heretofore. 
It permits the sale of commodities in original stand¬ 
ard containers, viz.: those containers of standard capac¬ 
ity as used by the grower or packer, provided the con¬ 
tents of such containers have not been removed or re¬ 
packed subsequent to original packing, and upon which 
is plainly marked the net quantity of contents in terms 
of weight, measure or numerical count. 
