<lht RURAL NEW-YORKER 
1537 
A Tobacco Association in Trouble 
The Dark Tobacco Association is really in desperate 
straits; it has failed to satisfy its members, and yet its 
breakdown would be a calamity to the whole dark to¬ 
bacco district. 
We are hoping not to have any more Sapiro organi¬ 
zations to deal with in this part of the country ; not for 
a while at least. There is too much thought given in 
them to forming a big organization, and too little to the 
methods of doing business and carrying on the organi¬ 
zation after it has been organized. We have not de¬ 
spaired as yet; there is still a chance for them ; but the 
safest and surest co-operative is the one that grows up 
from the ground and is tended and developed by the 
farmers themselves. 
I inclose clipping of an article in Southern Agricul¬ 
turist by the editor. southland. 
Tennessee. 
OME months back the Attorney General of the 
State of Tennessee filed a suit against the Bur¬ 
ley Tobacco Growers’ Association to prevent it do¬ 
ing business in the State. The allegations in the 
complaint are not considered seriously by the associa¬ 
tion and its friends; and the legal action seems ex¬ 
tremely unfortunate and unwise. The .reasons for 
the action are strained, and it is not likely to suc¬ 
ceed in its purpose. If the law is faulty the remedy 
clearly is to correct its defects in the Legislature and 
not to upset the whole organization work of the 
State by drastic court decision. 
The discussion of the suit, however, has empha¬ 
sized some things in the organization that should 
be helpful to the members. One of these features is 
the machinery of the organization, and another is 
the policy of it. The organization is of the central¬ 
ized Sapiro type, with members widely distributed 
over the dark tobacco production district. It binds 
members to turn over the entire crop to the associa¬ 
tion for five years. Like all the centralized organi¬ 
zations it is imperial in authority, autocratic in 
management, and extravagant in operation. 
Like the others of its type, also, it depends for 
results on its ability to create a monopoly, with ap¬ 
parent blissful ignorance of the demonstrated fact 
that no monopoly of a widely produced agricultural 
product is possible. 
Briefly summarized, the editorial article in South¬ 
ern Agriculturist indicates these conditions: 16,000,- 
000 lbs. of the 1922 crop, and 60,000,000 lbs. of the 
1923 crop are yet on hand unsold. Balances are yet 
due producers and unpaid. Non-members receive a 
higher price than members, and get paid promptly. 
The editor’s inquiries indicate that many members 
and growers outside believe that the association has 
held up the price of the tobacco sold. Many mem¬ 
bers and non-members believe that it has helped out¬ 
side growers at the expense of members. One-fourth 
of the members are satisfied, one-tliird would join 
again. ‘‘Three-fourths of the members are dissatis¬ 
fied with the way the association has been conduct¬ 
ed, some of them very much so. Many of them evi¬ 
dently feel that they have not had a square deal, 
while even more feel that membership in the asso¬ 
ciation has cost them money and has been to their 
disadvantage.” 
The editor quotes members’ complaints: “The out¬ 
siders get more.” “The association is not carried on 
right. The employes get all the money, farmers get 
nothing, and we need the money.” 
“I have raised tobacco all my life, and the pool 
has got me in worse than I ever was in my life.” 
“I think anything that is for farmers should be 
run by the farmers. The bankers and speculators 
seem to run the association.” 
“It costs too much to run it. They don’t care what 
help costs. It all comes out of the tobacco grower, 
who gets what is left.” 
“It kept me hungry and broke for the last three 
years.” 
“Myself and others think salaries of officials are 
too high. They should share with us, receiving the 
same percentage of their salaries advanced to us on 
tobacco.” 
“I will never raise any more tobacco until the five 
years are out, and then will never be persuaded into 
it again.” 
The editor makes the following comments: 
It is easy to see why so many members of the asso¬ 
ciation are dissatisfied and why so many growers who 
are not members are willing to remain outside of it. It 
is evident, to be frank about it, that the association has 
not made good. Unless the general impression is wrong, 
it has not made good in the markets—it has failed to 
get its members as much money, at least as much money 
in hand, for their tobacco as outsiders have received for 
tobacco of equal quality. Certainly, it has failed to 
make good by justifying its ways to its members, by 
keeping them informed as to what was being done and 
what it was costing to do it, and by keeping them in 
touch with the management of their own association. 
It is evident that many members of the association 
do not know what is happening to their tobacco, what 
the chances are of getting their money; they do not feel 
that they have any part or voice in the management of 
the association. Some of them evidently think of the 
association as something distinct from themselves, as 
something, perhaps, that has them in its grip and from 
which they would like to be loose. 
I do not believe members of the Dark Tobacco Asso¬ 
ciation have ever known as much as they should know 
about the conduct of the association. I am afraid they 
have never been told some of the things they had a 
right to know. There can be no secrets from the mem¬ 
bers in a co-operative organization. If members of this 
association have been led to believe unreasonable tales 
as to salaries, or costs of marketing, or running ex¬ 
penses of the association, it has been because the man¬ 
agement has not taken the pains to tell them the facts 
in the case. And they were entitled to know the facts; 
indeed, I think it not too much to say that it was one of 
the primary duties of the management to tell them these 
facts, to keep them informed just as fully as might be 
as to all the important details of the business. It is ray 
conviction that just about the greatest mistake made in 
the management of the Dark Tobacco Association has 
been made right at this point, and that it is a mistake 
that will be fatal to the future success of the associa¬ 
tion, and infinitely harmful to the progress of co-opera¬ 
tive marketing if not at once corrected. 
The record of the centralized farm organization 
everywhere is the same. The fundamental defect of 
it is that the control is in the official group and not 
in the hands of farmers, where it belongs. When 
farmers come to fully understand that they can have 
real co-operation and real benefits only when they 
do it themselves, the farm problem will be on the 
way to d solution, and farm co-operative business 
will be advancing to success. 
Are These Fair Questions? 
You have said several times that you think the New 
l r ork Farm Bureau lost its opportunity in the course it 
took regarding the school bill. Just what do you mean 
by that? Further, what more do you want to know 
about the Farm Bureau? A. w. M. 
E are quite willing to answer these or any 
other questions provided we are given credit 
for reasonably sincere motives. The trouble is that 
many officials or members of an organization cannot 
stand criticism even when it is well meant or con¬ 
structive. The tendency is to turn on the critic and 
accuse him of trying to destroy, when everyone out¬ 
side of the organization knows that the criticism 
may be constructive. Here are a few things we 
want to know: Just how many active, paid-up 
members are there in the New York Farm Bureau 
today? We do not mean members of the Home Bu¬ 
reau or Junior Work, but of the actual Farm Bureau 
as originally organized. Our remembrance is that 
there were at one time about 75,000 members. How 
many now? Of these members in good standing, 
how many may be called farmers? What propor¬ 
tion are town or city people in trade, profession or 
business? We are told that the actual membership 
has been cut in two at least, and that a large pro¬ 
portion of those who remain cannot by any stretch 
of the imagination be called working farmers. Now 
we want to know if these reports are true. The 
statistics of membership and a fair analysis of that 
membership ought to tell us. Thus far we have not 
been able to obtain the figures. Now there is noth¬ 
ing that can he construed as malignant criticism 
about this. The Farm Bureau has had years to 
work out what might be called success. It has had 
the full backing of the government and the great col¬ 
lege influence. Millions of money have been spent in 
promoting it. If now it is holding its own in num¬ 
bers and influence it deserves full support and 
should have it. If now, after these years, it cannot 
hold its volunteer membership and has lost the sup¬ 
port of any large number of farmers, it should be 
evident to anyone that the time has come for a show¬ 
down and a full overhauling. The writer of this 
joined the Farm Bureau at its beginning, and has 
always taken a personal interest in its work. From 
the first we doubted the wisdom of supporting such 
an organization with public money, taken from all 
the taxpayers, but we felt the experiment was well 
worth trying. Has this plan of giving the Farm 
Bureau a special privilege over other farm organiza¬ 
tions been a success? That is what we are going to 
find out, and we are going at the matter fairly and 
without prejudice. The part which must be played 
by the sincere critic is never a pleasant one, but the 
time has come in the history of agricultural educa¬ 
tion when it is the duty of someone to bring these 
matters up and push them to a finish. If the Farm 
Bureau is making a legitimate and practical use of 
its government stipend or bonus, let’s all get back of 
it and help. If the government’s investment is not 
paying full profit there is no useful reason why it 
should be continued. 
Food Supply of England 
A RECENT writer in the English Review paints a 
clear picture of farm conditions in Great Brit¬ 
ain. He says that English faiuners produce about 
52 per cent of the meat consumed by English peo¬ 
ple, and about 20 per cent of the bread. Thus 
nearly one-half of the meat and SO per cent of the 
wheat needed to feed England must be imported. 
Even this is a better showing than was made at the 
outbreak of the Great War. Most of the meat and 
nearly all the English-grown wheat is consumed in 
local markets, so that great cities like London are 
fed almost entirely from America and South Africa 
and Australia. Great efforts are being made to in¬ 
crease the production of meat and bread on English 
soil, but thus far with poor success. As a theory, 
nothing could be more economic than a develop¬ 
ment of English farms until they produced at least 
two-thirds of the needed food. It would save the 
nation from possible starvation in time of war, give 
farmers a full market, and settle the labor troubles. 
Yet is seems impossible to develop farming. There 
is vacant land enough to feed England, but somehow 
Englishmen will not work on the land. For many 
generations now the prevailing spirit of English in¬ 
dustrial life has been given to manufacturing. The 
national habit has been formed, and legislation, law. 
famine and appeal to patriotism all seem unable to 
change that habit. It seems that in these days only 
the natural farmers who can find contentment in the 
country will willingly live on farms. It is much the 
same in this country. The five New England States 
are today in just about the same situation as re¬ 
gards food supply as old England. There is every 
economical and patriotic argument in favor of put¬ 
ting the vacant land into food production, yet habit 
and distaste for country life will prevent it. 
Farm Children Are Not Inferior 
HE Bureau of Education of the National Depart¬ 
ment of the Interior recently distinguished it¬ 
self by printing an article in favor of the child labor 
amendment. There was a storm of protest, and the 
director of the bureau stated that the article was a 
mistake—printed without his permission. Now the 
bureau prints the following: 
Facts involving 20,000 high school pupils represent¬ 
ing every State in the L'nion show that farm children 
make better progress than other children through high 
school. This is true because of the unusually good 
progress of farm girls. The facts show also that a 
higher percentage of farm girls than of other girls are 
enrolled, and that the percentage of elimination from 
high school is lower. Unless we concede remarkable 
sex differences of ability between farm boys and girls, 
therefore, we must abandon the ancient myth that the 
farm stock is decaying and that all the brains have 
migrated to the cities. 
Sentimentalists who have sought to improve rural 
education by raising the bogy of decay of the farm 
stock and have advanced a program designed to keep 
the most intelligent on the farm must seek another leg 
to stand on. The farm stock is still virile and intel¬ 
ligent. It is yet educable. We need not fear to offer 
to country children an unbiased liberal education and 
permit, even encourage, those so minded and fitted to 
seek opportunity wherever it beckons, whether it be 
upon the farm or in the professions or trades. 
There are a number of people going about the 
country sorrowing over the great misfortunes of 
rural children. They see a failure of democracy 
unless these country children can be herded in the 
towns and brought away from the influences of 
home. We have yet to be convinced that the modern 
system of town education is capable of acting as an 
antiseptic to prevent moral decay. We prefer to see 
the country schools preserved and improved. Many 
city children would be better off if the big schools 
could be broken up and the children carried to small¬ 
er schools in the country. The Bible says “ There ia 
that scattereth and yet increaseth.” 
The Farmer, the Teacher, the Preacher 
[The following extract is taken from a sermon re¬ 
cently preached in Dover-Foxcroft, Me., by Rev. H. F. 
Huse, pastor of the United Baptist Church.] 
Before the war the total mortgage debt on the farms 
of the country was $1,700,000,000. At the close of the 
war it amounted to $4,000,000,000. Today the total 
mortgage and other indebtedness upon the American 
■farms, according to the estimate of officers of the Na¬ 
tional Grange, is the staggering sum of $14,000,000,000. 
It seems strange to me that the farmer who feeds the 
world, with so much prosperity in other directions, 
should be in such a desolate plight. This situation is 
one that is giving not only the farmer and the friend of 
the farmer serious concern, but the President and the 
ablest statesmen of the land. “If,” as Mr. Coolidge 
has recently said, “we ever permit our farming popu¬ 
lation to fall below the level of a mere agricultural 
peasantry, they will carry down with them the general 
social and economic level. Every citizen among us has 
a personal concern for the welfare of the farmer. The 
fortunes of all of us will in the end go up or down 
with him.” Surely this then is no idle peril. 
The farmer! The teacher! The preacher! The farm¬ 
er feeds the body, the teacher feeds the mind, the 
preacher feeds the soul. If in the realm of human 
endeavor life for any or all of these is made so hard and 
impossible that those engaged in these all-essential 
callings are driven out of them, pray where in the end 
do we come out? If beneath the disappointments, the 
burdens, the sorrows and Bufferings of theset callings those 
engaged in them break down and fail, if the means are 
not forthcoming for those who wish to keep in these oc¬ 
cupations to get the adequate preparation that is need- 
(Continued on page 1544) 
