SHOP TALK AMONG 

FINANCIAL STABILITY of co- 
Operatives is attested in the recent 
Farm Credit Administration report, 
just distributed, which discloses that 
13 banks for cooperatives have loaned 
$1,424,808,263, with losses estimated 
at 19/100 of one percent. The report 
also indicated a substantial increase 
in loans to cooperatives, the 1943 
total, $398,581,320, as compared with 
$252,379,499 for 1942. Farm Credit 
Administration says the increase in 
loans to cooperatives during the past 
few years has been largely due to the 
need for funds to process and market 
increased volume of fruits, fibers and 
oil produced under the wartime pro- 
duction program. A total of 1562 
cooperatives, with a total estimated 
membership of 1,158,525 farmers, par- 
ticipate in this banking service. 
LEGAL STATUS of cooperatives 
in establishing the same financial 
protection guaranteed to individual 
producers under a state’s licensing 
and bonding laws was definitely given 
a solid foundation by the Court of 
Errors and Appeals of the New Jersey 
Supreme Court. In the action which 
resulted in bringing a precedent to the 
status of cooperatives, the farmers 
organization had filed a claim against 
a cettain company for default in 
payment. The bonding company in- 
volved had contended that the co- 
operative was not entitled to the 
protection of the licensing and bond- 
ing laws because it was not an in- 
dividual producer. The Court ruled 
that a cooperative, in this instance, 
is a producer and is, therefore, pro- 
tected by the same laws safeguarding 
individuals against loss. 
POSTWAR MARKETS of gigan- 
tic proportions will be found in a 
survey recently completed by the 
Dairymen’s League through its New 
York state territory. The League cov- 
ered 28,000 dairy-farm families who 
have reported savings up to $91,000,- 
000 available for purchasing necessi- 
ties after the war. 
The potential market for products 
of industry among these League mem- 
bers includes 20,000 new automobiles, 
trucks and tractors totalling $21,- 
433,000, and much automotive repair 
and maintenance parts amounting to 
$1,880,000. Practically every type of 
household convenience and necessity 
was listed by some farm family in this 
tabulation. 
“FARMER SELF-HELP through 
cooperation is a cornerstone of the 
national agricultural policy,’’ Quen- 
tin Reynolds, Eastern States general 
manager, told the Boston Conference 
on Distribution at its annual session. 
A farmer purchasing cooperative, said 
Mr. Reynolds, is not a principal buy- 
ing to profit from resale but an agent 
buying for members and patrons who 
profit from the value-in-use. Men- 
tioning the activity of interests seek- 
ing taxes for farmer-cooperatives, Mr. 
Reynolds commented: 
“Unfortunately, on the apparent 
assumption that destroying farmer 
cooperation is an important means of 
correcting grossly inequitable and 
bad corporation tax laws, hundreds 
of thousands of dollars are being 
demanded from tax-ridden corpora- 
tions to further that end. Fortu- 
nately, a great many executives in 
banking, transportation, and indus- 
try know the constructive place farmer 
cooperatives fill in the economy and 
the result of this demonstration will 
rest upon whether or not reason and 
good judgment are going to dominate 
the economic destiny of the nation. 
That reason and good judgment do 
prevail is the concern all responsible 
citizens share with the farmers.”’ 
FROZEN FOOD PLANTS fur- 
nishing a locker service now total 
5282 according to a recent count 
made by extension services in the 48 
states. Last year alone the increase 
was 723, while in the past seven years 
the total was quadrupled. The state 
of lowa leads with 580 and Minne- 
sota is second with 470. 
The northeastern farm states are 
far behind those of the middle and 
far West. In Eastern States’ territory, 
New England has a total of 63, dis- 
tributed as follows: Massachusetts 
10, Connecticut 15, Rhode Island 2, 
New Hampshire 7, Vermont 28 and 
Maine 1. In the Middle Atlantic 
area, Delaware has five, Maryland 
14 and Pennsylvania 75. 
RESPONSIBILITY of a director 
of a cooperative and of the coopera- 
tive organization was well explained 
by C. E. Myers, president of Southern 
States Richmond Service at Sudley, 
Virginia, in an article written for 
Cooperative Digest. Said Mr. Myers: 
‘A director in a cooperative busi- 
mess represents patrons, whereas a 
director in a private business repre- 
sents dollars. There is a real differ- 
ence. The fact that patrons own and 
legally control a cooperative has im- 
portant implications which are quite 
foreign to the thinking of many 
capable business men and farmers not 
educated to cooperative principles. 
The purpose of the cooperative is 
service at a reasonable and fair cost, 
whereas the purpose of a private busi- 
Mess is service at a profit on the 
dollars invested. The owner of stock 
in a cooperative gets only rent or 
interest on his property, while the 
owner of stock in a private business 
gets a profit according to the number 
of dollars invested. 
In a successful cooperative, the 
patron makes a saving according 
to his use of the cooperative ser- 
vice. 
2 
