1 Jury, 1898.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 23 
but to form a new business. It was established, and, after a short and un- 
successful career, then bought out the agent’s business referred to. He (Mr. 
Deacon), on one occasion, asked the manager of the new concern why it did 
not pay, and, in reply, had the numerous clerks, auditors, books, secretary, &c., 
- pointed out to him. That was where the money went, and where it nearly 
always would go in co-operative companies. It was a mistake to think the 
auctioneer never gave credit. Very often the produce a farmer got cash for 
was sold by the auctioneer on credit. At any rate, he knew it was done in 
Brisbane. Of course, it should be remembered» that, although a farmer 
might be eager to get cash for his crop, he had given, say, .six months’ 
credit to the land. He himself had sown wheat in May, reaped it in» 
November, sold it in March, and then got a four months’ bill for it. In 
summing up on this point, he considered that farmers could not do without 
the middleman. In the matter of the collection and timely publication of 
agricultural statistics, he thought the idea was a good one, and one that might 
well be put into execution. At the same time he hoped that if the statistics 
were published they would be correct. Such statements as probable general 
yields of from 30 to 40 bushels of wheat to the acre in a district only did harm. 
If they were believed, they had a tendency to bring the price down to rates 
which were not warranted by the real facts of the case. Personally, he would 
rather see a probable crop under-estimated than over-estimated. These 
reported yields of 40 bushels of wheat to the acre reminded him of a gold-mine 
near his district, the manager of which reported a return of 4 oz. to the ton. 
On making further inquiries, he (Mr. Deacon) found that a ton in that mine 
weighed 80 cwt., and in the same way the acres which gave 40-bushel yields 
generally extended over from 6 to 8 roods. In conclusion, he hoped the 
matter of railway freights would not be lost sight of. a 
Mr. J. GinrmorE (Allora) supplied some interesting particulars in 
reference to the letter received from the Milbong Farmers’ Association. As 
for the difference between the prices paid for wheat and flour, this had been 
explained to him by a Downs miller as being due to the fact that millers had 
no proper outlet for their flour. Reduced railway freights would permit of 
this, and farmers would benefit through getting an increased price for their 
grain. 
Mr. Cuataway, in summing up the papers and discussion, said that one 
thing was perfectly clear. Mr. Twine had stated that there was no competition 
in the Brisbane market. A case of grapes was put up and knocked down at a 
certain price. Then anyone could take as many cases as they liked out of the 
whole consignment at the same price, and, in stating this, Mr. Twine evidently 
inferred that the buyers agreed to make one bid. Mr. O’Keefe had shown 
that the sellers brought their produce to market and competed against them- 
selves. It therefore seemed to be clear that what was desired by 
producers was no competition among sellers, and keen and animated 
competition among buyers. ‘That, he supposed, would sun up the position they. 
desired to get themselves into. A great deal ot light had been thrown on 
co-operative work, and the difference between co-operative and joint-stock 
enterprises had been clearly pointed out. This distinction should be thoroughly 
understood by all who embarked on co-operative undertakings, for, as Mr. 
Lindeman had said, the failure of many so-called co-operative companies was 
owing to the fact that they were not co-operative at all. There was, how- 
ever, another reason why co-operative enterprises had so often failed, and that 
was more or less incapable management. One delegate had said that they 
required a manager who could feel for farmers—one who had laboured under 
the disabilities that they were labouring under. Well, all he could say 
was that misplaced sympathy had killed a lot of things. A reason why 
co-operative enterprises so oiten failed, was because the co-operative pro- 
ducer refused to pay for brains and experience. ‘The co-operation came 
into competition with the best brains and keenest intellects in the world, © 
and that was largely why co-operative production, apart from co-operative 
