s 
 
 57! 
 
 ni4 
 
 \h, -&. -ou 
 
 ^n^y^vvje^wo^ ' 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 ■vvULv 
 
63d Congress \ 
 2d Session J 
 
 SENATE 
 
 / Document 
 \ No. 579 
 
 MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS 
 
 HEARING 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY "OF COMMERCE 
 
 RELATIVE TO 
 
 THE MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS IN 
 CONTINENTAL EUROPE 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 1914 
 

 V 
 
 In the Senate of the United States, 
 September 5 {calendar day, September 12), 1914- 
 Resolved, That the manuscript entitled "Marketing of farm prod- 
 ucts/' by David Lubin, United States delegate to the International 
 Institute of Agriculture, be printed as a Senate document. 
 Attest: 
 
 James M. Baker, 
 
 Secretary. 
 By H. M. Rose, 
 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 2 
 
 Ui Or ^ 
 

 MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 FRIDAY, AUGUST 14, 1914. 
 
 Present: Hon. Edwin F. Sweet, Assistant Secretary of Commerce; 
 Hon. Albertus H. Baldwin, Chief Bureau of Foreign and Domestic 
 Commerce; Hon. William J. Harris, Director of the Census; Mr. 
 David Lubin, of California, delegate of the United States to the 
 International Institute of Agriculture, Rome, Italy; Mr. George P. 
 Hampton, of New York, representing certain State granges; Mr. 
 Joseph D. Lewis, chief of division, Bureau of the Census; Mr. H. J. 
 Zimmerman, in charge cotton statistics, Bureau of the Census; Mr. 
 Arthur J. Hirsch, chief of division, Department of Agriculture; Mr. 
 C. T. More, Office of Markets, Department of Agriculture; and Mr. 
 G. C. White, Office of Markets, Department of Agriculture. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID LUBIN, DELEGATE OF THE 
 UNITED STATES TO THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 
 OF AGRICULTURE, ROME, ITALY. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. I believe we are going to listen to some 
 suggestions by Mr. Lubin on the subject of marketing farm products 
 in continental Europe, to see what we can learn from their example. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. We see in the papers this morning and last night the 
 statement and wishes of the President in the matter of the undue 
 rise in the price of food products, and the evil influences on the 
 economic condition of the people resulting therefrom, and that he 
 has asked the Department of Commerce to take this subject up in an 
 investigation, with the end in view of finding an effective remedy. 
 
 Believing that I had a tentative proposal in that direction to offer, 
 I asked for this hearing. 
 
 This inquiry, as it appears to me, offers the department the choice 
 of one of three different modes of procedure — 
 
 First. To merely make an investigation, and let the report go to 
 the people; 
 
 Second. To advocate the penalization of those supposedly re- 
 sponsible for the evil complained of ; or, 
 
 Third. The adoption of a working plan calculated to diminish 
 the possibility of the cause which generates the evil. 
 
 It was in the belief that this department is to be actuated by the 
 third of these motives, that I asked for this hearing. I will now pro- 
 ceed to submit my suggestion. Briefly, it is the adaptation and adop- 
 tion in the United States of the European system of marketing farm 
 products. 
 
 I offer this as a remedy not merely to meet the temporary phase 
 of economic disturbance said to be caused by the war, but also as a 
 means of permanent economic betterment which it would afford long 
 
4 MARKETING OF FAEM PEODUCTS. 
 
 after the war will have been forgotten; for the betterment I have in 
 mind is of a permanent nature. And the question now remains, 
 which of the three motives just enumerated is to actuate the depart- 
 ment in this inquiry ? 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. I think you can fairly assume that the 
 latter one of the three is the purpose, Mr. Lubin. We want to do 
 what we can for the betterment of the general conditions. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Well, then, it is in order for me to proceed, but before 
 doing so I desire to state that Mr. Hampton, a coworker, is here with 
 me, and that he represents some State granges. What granges do 
 you represent, Mr. Hampton? 
 
 Mr. Hampton. Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota, 
 Colorado, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. I have been working in conjunction with Mr. Hampton 
 and with Mr. Creasy. Mr. Creasy is the master of Pennsylvania 
 State Grange, and when I leave Washington I am to present this 
 subject before the executive committee of the Pennsylvania State 
 Grange, but the presentation then will be modified in some essentials 
 from that made here, the reason for which I will explain further on. 
 
 The basic feature in the German system of marketing farm prod- 
 ucts is its "Landwirtschaftsrat" (its national council of agriculture). 
 This Landwirtschaftsrat is a semiofficial body, which, beginning in the 
 township, the county, thence upward to the Province, culminates in 
 the national organization of its 72 members, with its seat in Berlin. 
 Its revenue for expenses is met by Government taxation of each 
 farmer having a vote. It has the power (in a consultative and in an 
 advisory manner) under Federal law of exercising the initiative and 
 referendum on all laws that are being enacted, or that are up for dis- 
 cussion in the Reichstag, which have a direct or an indirect bearing 
 on the industry of agriculture, and it has the right to submit amend- 
 ments or ask the repeal of existing laws bearing on the subject of that 
 industry. Of course, this is only an advisory body, but it is quite 
 clear to be seen from its operation that it is one of the most powerful 
 political and economic boclies in Germany. Incidentally it also looks 
 out for the thousand and one things that come under the head of 
 promoting agriculture, such as buying, selling, production, distribu- 
 tion, cooperative work, rural credits, etc. 
 
 Now, the proposal that I will submit to this department does not 
 embrace the taking up at this time of the Landwirtschftsrat; that 
 will be done at some future time by the farmers themselves, but what 
 I will offer right now is intended to serve as a substitute, and is of a 
 temporary character, in order that the success which is to follow from 
 the start may serve as a means to hasten on the adaptation and adop- 
 tion of the European marketing system in its most approved and 
 complete form. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Would you object, Mr. Lubin, to our 
 asking you a question once in a while as you go along ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Not at all. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. I would like to ask you if the advis- 
 ory power of this body is restricted to laws affecting farmers or land- 
 owners ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. I think that it is confined to the things that apper- 
 tain to agriculture, either directly or indirectly. The Landwirt- 
 schaftsrat probably would not be consulted on matters foreign to 
 
MARKETING OF FAEM PRODUCTS. O 
 
 agriculture. In short, what the chambers of commerce and the 
 boards of trade are to commerce, that the Landwirtschaftsrat is to 
 agriculture. 
 
 In the United States we have no such body, but in place we have 
 a miscellaneous assortment of bodies calling themselves ''national." 
 
 Some of these, like poisonous mushrooms, spring up over night. 
 They make a nice showing on paper, and their main ambition seems 
 to be to sit "on the platform" and to be taken as the spokesmen of 
 the American farmer. "As smoke to the eye, and as vinegar to the 
 teeth," so are these "representatives." 
 
 Then there are the so-called "national bodies," who represent 
 unwieldy, incoherent masses mainly influenced by heterogeneous 
 ideas, who seldom know what is to be done or what is not to be done. 
 
 And when some of these national bodies are really composed of 
 honest, earnest men, they are easily discredited and pushed to the 
 wall by those who are not honest, earnest, or capable. 
 
 The status of these "national" organizations reminds me of a story. 
 The San Francisco Argonaut came out with a query, "What is a Popu- 
 list?" It said: "It is a hard question; we will try to answer it next 
 ssue." Of course everyone got ready to buy a copy of the Argonaut 
 and see what a Populist was. The next issue it said: "We have got 
 the answer. A Populist is a fellow that doesn't know what he wants, 
 
 and he wants it d d quick." Now, that is about what our national 
 
 farmers' organizations are. They want something awfully quick and 
 don't know what they want. As a result, they get nothing. Now, in 
 Germany the national agricultural organization is a great harmonious 
 coherent institution, it is a breathing body — breathing from the 
 head down to the feet and from the little township up to the head, up 
 to the county ; still higher, the Province, and up until it takes its seat 
 in Berlin as adviser of the imperial governing power of the nation; and 
 that institution does a great deal for German agriculture and for the 
 German nation. I would like to see a similar institution put into 
 operation here. It is going to be put into operation, and, as I say, it 
 may take two or three years' time; but the substitute that I propose 
 at this meeting here is going to hurry up the Landwirtshaftsrat. It 
 is not going to stand in its way at all. 
 
 In order that we may grasp what this substitute means, I would like 
 one of you gentlemen, who is a fair reader, to run through an article 
 which i have here — not on this question of to-day. It only deals 
 with it indirectly, it deals with the tobacco phase of the question; 
 but it touches what I am trying to get at broadly. You have got to 
 pick your way through it; but you gentlemen are skilled enough to 
 know when to let go of the tobacco phase of the question and to take 
 up the question as a whole. After you have heard this paper it will 
 make it quite easy to understand the merits of my proposal, so if you 
 will ask one of these gentlemen to read it i will be much obliged. 
 
 (At the request of the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Baldwin read the 
 paper, which is herewith attached.) 
 
 Mr. Lubin. I beg pardon; I must explain. This paper was sent 
 to Mr. Flood, who is chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. 
 Now, several countries in Europe make a monopoly of the tobacco 
 business. The Government is the tobacco buyer and seller. Every 
 cigar that is sold, every piece of tobacco is owned by the Government 
 and sold in the Government shops, etc. They have one buyer in 
 
6 MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 these countries, and their mode of buying is uneconomical to the 
 American producers. The American producers then formed a union 
 for the selling of their tobacco, and then made a demand through the 
 American ambassador to get the Italian " regie," or the royal monop- 
 oly buyer, to pledge himself to buy exclusively from the union. The 
 Italian "regie" buyer then made a pledge to the ambassador that he 
 would do the best he knew how, but it did not work out well; so they 
 sent another communication to Rome requesting the cooperation of 
 the International Institute of Agriculture in the matter. Accord- 
 ingly I went to the ambassador for instructions. He advised me to 
 go and see the " regie" man again, and of course I could talk to him 
 much more openly than the ambassador could. We had a talk, and 
 finally he got me to hand in my request in writing, all of which will 
 appear in that paper. It is in this paper that I sent to Mr. Flood, 
 the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that I touch upon the 
 question of marketing farm products. There is where the marketing 
 
 Erocess will come in. Mr. Flood, whom I have seen since coming here, 
 as handed this paper to the tobacco people. I wish to say, paren- 
 thetically, that about eight years of my life were devoted to the pro- 
 motion of the California fruit industry, and now the fruits of Cali- 
 fornia, while the distribution is very much better than about 20 or 
 25 years ago, is very much behind hand when compared to the 
 European mode of marketing. 
 
 To give us the perfected systems of distribution operating in Eu- 
 rope we must, first of all, have the Landwirtschaf tsrat, and, secondly, 
 a rational rural credit system, and I wish to say right here that there 
 is no reason that I know of why we can not have the Landschaft 
 rural credit system in the United States. There is no country in 
 the world where money is cheaper than in the United States. My 
 children in England deposit money in the postal savings bank and 
 they receive either 3 or 3 \ per cent. In the United States they would 
 only receive 2 per cent, so that money here is cheaper than anywhere 
 else in the world, and Landschaft bonds, if properly devised, can be 
 readily disposed of for 3, 3J, and 4 per cent, the same as in Europe, 
 and that with amortization. But all this will have to be done ra- 
 tionally, and there has got to be no trace of what we may call Pef- 
 ferism, no Populism, in it. Government can not grind out unsecured 
 money, nor buy rural credit bonds, nor advance money to farmers 
 any more than for barbers or shoemakers. There is a way of start- 
 ing a rural credit system rationally, and I propose to take that up 
 very shortly, just as soon as the resolution now pending in Congress 
 is acted upon, the resolution on merchant marine. What is this 
 resolution % Is it a proposition about getting ships to carry our 
 exports overseas during the continuance of this war ? It has noth- 
 ing at all to do with the war, but it has much to do with the question 
 of agriculture, the distribution of agriculture. It has to do with the 
 question of the world's price of the staples, and it has to do with 
 the home price of staples. Say, for instance, that the price of wheat 
 in Liverpool is $1, in other words, the buyer there says, "I will give 
 you a dollar per bushel for wheat." The producer in this country 
 says, "Very good; give me the dollar, and I will give you the bushel 
 of wheat," and the buyer in Liverpool says "All right; deliver it 
 right here in my warehouse, and you may have the dollar." 
 
MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 7 
 
 And so you see that a carrier is wanted to carry it over the sea, 
 and now if it costs a cent a bushel for delivery from New York to 
 Liverpool the American seller will receive 99 cents for the wheat, or 
 1 cent deducted from the dollar. If it should cost 25 cents for deliv- 
 ery from New York to Liverpool, it would only leave the New York 
 seller 75 cents net a bushel. Seventy-five cents net for what ? Is it 
 for the quantity exported ? Yes ; and, more than that, for the remain- 
 ing quantity that is left in the home market. For the export price 
 for the staples is the home price likewise, and right here we see there is 
 a great difference between the price fixing mode of the staples and the 
 price-fixing mode of the manufactures. The cost of carriage on 
 neckties or shoes may advance or decline, but that cost of carriage 
 will not increase or diminish the home or foreign price of all other 
 neckties or shoes. But in the case of the staples of agriculture, inas- 
 much as they are sold in the bourses, pits, or exchanges, which are 
 practically the world's megaphones, speaking to one another; it thus 
 follows that an increase or decrease in the cost of carriage has an imme- 
 diate and direct effect in the home market and an indirect effect in 
 the world's price. And this I tried to explain at the last joint meet- 
 ing that we held on August 1 , between the representatives of the De- 
 gartment of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce, when Mr. 
 [arris, the Director of the Census, presided. You will remember, 
 Mr. Harris, the illustration I gave; let me repeat it. We attach a 
 hook in the ceiling and fasten a pulley on the hook, then pass a rope 
 through this pulley and pass the two ends of the rope down on a line 
 horizontal to our arms. We take one end of the rope in the left hand 
 and let that represent the home market price of the staples of agricul- 
 ture, and we grasp the other end of the rope in the right hand and call it 
 the carrier, and then we do this [indicating]; in proportion as we 
 raise the right hand, down will come the left hand, and as we press 
 the right hand down, up will go the left hand. In other words, when 
 you raise the cost of carriage you lower the home market price 
 correspondingly, and when you reduce the cost of carriage you raise 
 the home market price correspondingly. 
 
 And so we see that if we give the carrier full play he has it in his 
 power to raise and lower the home price at will, and in the matter of 
 ocean carriage, if there is a combination of shipowners, they can raise 
 and lower the world's prices at will; they can raise the price of car- 
 riage and thus lower the cost of the product and then go into the pit 
 and buy. They can then lower the cost of carriage and raise the 
 price of the product correspondingly, and then sell. They can do 
 this, and make so much money out of producer and consumer until 
 they get tired gathering in money. They can not do this with raising 
 and lowering the cost of carriage on neckties, shirts, typewriters, or 
 desks, but they can do this on the staples of agriculture, because 
 manufactured merchandise is transported at fixed rates, with 30 
 or 60 days' notice of a change of rates, but the staples of agriculture 
 have no fixed rates of carriage at all. The rates can be 1 cent a 
 bushel one day and it can be 25 cents a bushel the next day. 
 
 Now, you and I know that a buyer of manufactured goods must 
 figure it all out in buying, the charge at the place of sale, the cost of 
 carriage to lay the goods down. Without such calculation he could 
 not rationally buy. Now, then, how is a man to buy the staples of 
 agriculture or how is the producer to sell it ? What is the basis for 
 
8 MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 their calculation ? Since the cost of carriage is an unknown factor, 
 how is the price to be arrived at? We are driven to the conclusion 
 that there is no rational way of arriving at what the price should be. 
 There is a rational way for buying and selling merchandise, for the 
 cost of carriage of merchandise is fixed with 30 or 60 days' notice 
 for any change. But in the case of staples of agriculture there can 
 be no basis for calculation so long as the cost of carriage may vary 
 from day to day and from hour to hour. 
 
 "Give us this day our daily bread," and the good Lord gives us 
 this bread, but a lot of irresponsible shipowners come along, and by 
 arbitrarily changing the rates of ocean carriage from day to day, and 
 from hour to hour — by doing this, they put a measuring rod on the 
 bread, which in substance is the same as saying, "The good Lord 
 gives you the bread all right, but we, the shipowners, shall determine 
 for you what the size of that loaf shall be," and when the shipowners 
 have that power they have more power than presidents, emperors, 
 czars, kings, or princes, upon this earth, and that is too great a power 
 to have. They should have no such power; it does not fit in with the 
 twentieth century. It is not sensible; it is not just; it is not right; 
 and it should stop and stop for good. 
 
 And mark you, it is insufficient to stop it for one country alone. 
 During all the centuries there has been a great deal of laughing at 
 the men who preach the doctrine of holding out our hands to a 
 fellow man, to our neighbor, to our brother, and the world considered 
 that a joke. It just happens that it is no joke at all, because before 
 we can have a just price in the United States lor the staples of agri- 
 culture; the food products for man, woman, and child, and the raw 
 material for clothing them, before we can have a just measure for 
 ourselves we have got to see that there is a just measure in such out 
 of the way places as Odessa and Rosario. You may ask what have 
 we to do with Russia or Argentina, and the answer is, before we 
 can have a just price in the United States we must see that the 
 prices are just in those countries first of all. If they and their products 
 are to go to the devil they will pull us right along with them. That 
 is the law. If the world's price is pulled down below the normal at 
 Rosario or Odessa that will tend to pull our price down, and thus we 
 see that we are our brother's keeper, that the world's price in its 
 making has the whole world for its range; that it is international; 
 and the purpose of the pending resolution is to place the factor of 
 ocean carriage so equitable and just as shall provide a rational 
 basis for calculation of the price of the staples; so that the man on 
 the farm anywhere will be able to take pencil and paper and figure 
 out from the data at hand what the world's price is at his port in 
 the nation and what it is worth on his farm. 
 
 Waiving for the time being the subjects of the resolution above 
 referred to, of the need of Landwirtschaftsrat and of the Landschaft 
 system of rural credits, and returning to the project which I am to 
 present to you this afternoon, let me first of all hand you the fol- 
 lowing paper concerning the project for marketing farm products, 
 which I would be pleased to have you read, and I will explain it as 
 you go along. 
 
MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. \) 
 
 Proposal Submitted at a Meeting in the Department of Commerce Friday, 
 
 August 14, 1914. 
 
 marketing food products by the farmers direct to the consumers. 
 
 Wholesale: (a) Sample salesrooms, (b) auction rooms, and (c) exchange, or pit. 
 
 Retail: (a) Salesroom, (6) auction room, exchange or pit, and (c) street market. 
 
 Wholesale: For the larger cities only. Sales in salesrooms, auction, and pits, in 
 operation daily- 
 Retail: Small towns, at stated times during the week, and at stated hours. 
 
 National and State committee: President chamber of commerce, mayors of the three 
 largest. cities in .State, three members of leading department stores, leading carrier, 
 parcel-post man, leading banker, leading workingman, president of the county 
 council. 
 
 In addition to the above there should be leading farmers, who should compose a 
 majority of the entire committee. 
 
 Subcommittees appointed by the above for (a) large cities, (6) counties, who shall 
 appoint subcommittees of the above for townships. , 
 
 All under the direction of the national commission and the supervision of the 
 United States Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Commerce, who 
 shall each provide field agents, so as to instruct and line up. 
 
 This paper that you have just read is part of the project that I am 
 submitting to you this afternoon. The president and the people are 
 complaining about the undue rise in prices of the products of the farm ; 
 for the undue rise in the price of food products. Well, what is the 
 remedy? Will it be to argue with buyers and sellers or to penalize 
 them ? I do not think that anything can be accomplished in that 
 way. There has been a great talk and there is a great talk aU over 
 the country that the trusts are responsible for the high prices in the 
 cost of food products, for the high cost of living. Well, there is but 
 one effective way to fight the trusts, and that is to take the goods that 
 are trusted out of their reach ; that is the way to make the trust impos- 
 sible, and this is just what I propose under the plan set forth and to 
 be still further set forth. The plan, in substance, is this: 
 
 First. Let the President of the United States appoint a national 
 committee consisting of (a) the president of a chamber of commerce; 
 (b) mayors of three of the largest cities in the Union ; (c) three members 
 of the leading mail-order and department stores; (d) a leading railroad 
 man; (e) a parcel-post man: (/) a leading banker; (g) a leading work- 
 ingman; (h) two Congressmen; (i) a Senator, making 14 in all, and 
 in addition to these 14 let the President add 15 farmers from va- 
 rious sections of the United States. This committee of 29 to be 
 the national committee, who shall meet and organize for the purpose 
 of having the food products in the various States in the Union dis- 
 tributed under the plan that shall be explained further on. 
 
 Second. Said national committee shall have prescribed power of 
 direction of similar committees to be appointed by each of the gover- 
 nors in every State of the Union. 
 
 Third. Said State committees shall have the power to appoint 
 smaller committees of the same kind for (a) the larger cities in the 
 State and for counties, and the county committee shall have the right 
 to appoint the township committee. 
 
 The national committee after organization shall devise a plan for 
 the delivery and sale of the products, with plans and specifications 
 and details of sample rooms, auction rooms, exchanges, pits, and 
 street markets, and designate how the products in township, county, 
 and State are to be synchronized for shipment, for display, by private 
 sale and by auction, the rules for selling and delivery, the terms of 
 
10 MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 sale, and the mode of procedure. The various committees appointed 
 are to ask the assistance and cooperation of the press, the carriers, 
 the Federal, State, and county officials, the ministers of the various 
 religious denominations, the various chambers of commerce and boards 
 of trade, the labor leaders, and the farmers everywhere. The Federal 
 committee above stated shall send copies of the plans and details and 
 specifications and drawings to the various State committees, and the 
 State committees, after elaborating and modifying said plans, are to 
 send copies of same to the county organization and to the township 
 organizations. 
 
 It is assumed that the national committee here proposed, if ap- 
 pointed by the President of the United States for, say one year's 
 service, would find no trouble to obtain the service of high-grade men 
 for at least one year, free of charge to the United States Government. 
 It is further assumed that the State, county, and township committees 
 would serve that term free of charge. This, in substance, is the plan. 
 While it is mor3 clumsy than the plan under the proposed Landwirt- 
 schaftsrat it has this merit at the present time; first, we have not yet 
 got the Landwirtschaftsrat; second, it would be the most likely means 
 of getting it, for no sooner would these committees start out in their 
 work than it would become palpably evident that a Landwirtschafts- 
 rat system would be a simpler mode of doing the same thing. 
 
 In the European countries there is no such thing as a trust in food 
 products; there can not be any so long as the Landwirtschaftsrat is 
 there. The farmers in European countries do all the trust business 
 themselves, and as a result the farmers are benefited and the con- 
 sumer is benefited. Were the trust system of food products carried 
 on in Europe as it is in the United States, it would cause a state of 
 permanent famine there. 
 
 The Governments of Europe would not tolerate food trusts in their 
 country for one moment, and all the penalizing and talking that we 
 may do against trusts in the United States will not amount to a "hill 
 of beans." The way to fight the trusts is to take the goods away that 
 the trust deals in ; so long as the trust can get hold of the hogs, of the 
 butter, of the potatoes, and of the chickens, there will be hog trusts, 
 butter trusts, potato trusts, and chicken trusts. Let the president 
 start these committees; let these committees perform their work 
 intelligently and thoroughly and conscientiously and the trust is 
 gone and the Landwirtschaftsrat will follow. If we are in earnest 
 about this matter let us prove this earnestness by the plan here pro- 
 posed. Nor can it be objected to on the score of novelty. The com- 
 mittee may be new but the mode of disposing of farm products here 
 proposed is not new; it is in operation in almost every country in 
 Europe and why should it not be in operation in the United States? 
 It should have been in operation here long ago. However, better 
 late than never. 
 
 Now, to return to the committee. Assuming that the Government 
 got this thing started, and that the proposal was put in working 
 order, the Government could then provide a number of field agents 
 under the supervision of the United States Department of Agriculture 
 and of the Department of Commerce, whose duty it would be to 
 instruct the subcommittees. 
 
 So far as the selling is concerned, that end of the work could be 
 taken care of all right with men on the national commission like Mr. 
 
MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 11 
 
 Wanamaker, Mr. Julius Rosenwald, of Sears, Roebuck & Co., the 
 head man of Montgomery Ward, or the head man of Dun or Brad- 
 street. With men of this character on the committee we need have 
 no fear so far as the selling end of the work will be concerned. 
 
 The weakest spot in the carrying out of this proposal is the long 
 reach of the trust. The trusts know that all the laws from here to 
 the heavens can not hurt them. There is only one thing that can hurt 
 a trust, say an egg trust — take the eggs away from the trust and the 
 trust is gone. And so all along the line — take the things away from 
 the trust that the trust deals in and you are done with that trust. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. After you get a committee such as 
 that proposed, what would they do ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Tluy would proceed to do the things here proposed. 
 For instance, the products will be synchronized all along the route of 
 the railway and train service will take these products up and dump 
 out designated quantities at certain sales places. Each town and 
 city will have its auction rooms and almost every hour of the day a 
 diffarent hne of produce will be offered for sale. " Then there will be 
 the open-air markets; the cities and towns will designate certain 
 public squares for that purpose, when twice a week, more or less, and 
 for the hours designatad, these public squares are converted into 
 a market, with a space designated for each seller, and the rules of 
 sale and delivery are to be made public throughout. 
 
 Does this seem new to yoa? Well, let us see. Supposing Mr. 
 Armour was to send his manager to Denmark with a commission to 
 start an egg trust there, and with a check book with a large amount of 
 cash behind it to buy eggs. Where would that manager have to buy 
 those eggs in Denmark ? He would have to buy them in the grocery 
 stores at retail, for the wholesale end of the egg business in that country 
 is in the hands of the farmers themselves, and so with butter, and so 
 with chickens, and so with hog products. This is not only so in Den- 
 mark, but it is so in Germany, France, in Austria, in Italy, in Belgium, 
 in Holland, in all Europe. 
 
 ' If we really want to stop the high cost of" living we can do it if we 
 want to, but we can never do it by penalizing the trusts; that is 
 nonsense. That may be a good way to talk to get votes. The way 
 to stop the trusts from fixing prices on goods is to take the goods 
 away frcm the trusts, and then they will have nothing to fix prices on. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin. That is the best example I know of of cooperative 
 selling. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes, this is cooperative selling and if we are in earnest 
 in the matter of doing away with the high cost of living, we can do it. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. Excuse me, these gentlemen may understand you, 
 Mr. Lubin, but I confess that I do not. If you simply say go ahead 
 with the case you have there, I would not know the first a, b, c of how 
 to start. And yet I know from this paper and from your own work, 
 and from the splendid work you have done there in California that 
 there is a great big thing behind it; but it is behind the curtain so far 
 as I am concerned. I do not know whether what I say is true with 
 the rest of those here. The Government, I suppose, has got to take 
 some action in this case, whether it is done by a bill in Congress and 
 how it is done, or whether they have got to make an appropriation. 
 
12 MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. I do not think it requires an appropriation at all. 
 If the President appoints this committee and they agree to serve, it 
 will not ask for money. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Your idea, then, as I understand it, 
 is to have this very representative committee or commission ap- 
 pointed by the Government some way ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes, sir; by the President of the United States. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. And then they become the medium 
 through which the producers market their goods on a really cooper- 
 ative plan ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes; there is a measure of cooperation, but the indi- 
 vidual farmer, if he so desires, can bring his goods to the salesrooms, 
 to the auction rooms, or to the open-air market, and either have them 
 sold for him or he can sell them himself. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Whether the committee or commission 
 do this work for compensation or not, you say that the first members 
 would very likely be secured for the glory of it, without pecuniary 
 compensation ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. But after that, whether you organize 
 the Landwirtschaftsrat or whether you continue through the proposed 
 committee, there will have to be compensation ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes; for the Landwirtschaftsrat members receive trav- 
 eling expenses, and clerks or porters or sales people, if employed, 
 would have to be paid. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary: You could not expect people to give 
 their time free of charge indefinitely. But, if I understand it, there 
 will be some system by which voluntarily the producers of the 
 country would work through this channel. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Realizing that in that way they 
 could reach the consumer and get a fair price for their commodity, 
 and that the consumer would only be paying a fair price ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes; that is it. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. You simply cut off all the middle- 
 men ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes; there would be no middlemen at all. There 
 would be the producers of their products and employees. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Is that the way you understand it, 
 Mr. Hampton? 
 
 Mr. Hampton. Yes, sir; that is the way I understand it now. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. I think, Mr. Hampton, you could 
 give us some idea on the subject from your own standpoint. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. Well, this was brought right to me to-day. I 
 understand this thing mainly because I have heard the paper that 
 Mi. Lubin submitted here before. Eut this municipal marketing 
 idea is a thing very attractive to me, and it occurs to me that if we 
 endeavor to arrange matters so that the small, ordinary, every-day 
 farmer, scattered all through the East, could give an abundant meat 
 supply we would have to have free markets and cooperative slaugh- 
 terhouses, and thus make the farmer absolutely independent of the 
 trust, and my mind has worked along the idea of these independent 
 cooperative things that would gradually be coordinated into a regu- 
 
MARKETING OF FAEM PEODUCTS. 13 
 
 lar, definite, harmonious whole, in which the larger cooperation 
 could make itself manifest along these larger lines that Mr. Lubin 
 has suggested. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. In the case of commodities, Mr. 
 Lubin, that must undergo some change between the original pro- 
 ducer and the final consumer, like meats, for instance; what is your 
 plan ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. The farmers can do all that. That is all done by the 
 farmers in Germany, from hogs to ham and bacon and lard, and 
 from farmer direct to the consumer. In Denmark, for instance, every 
 egg is stamped with the date, etc., and not merely do the farmers 
 handle the products in their own market, but the Danish farmers 
 handle the products even in London. I would suggest, Mr. Chair- 
 man, that ycu question some of the gentlemen who are present. Per- 
 haps that will help to bring cut the idea. 
 
 T^he Assistant Secretary. Do you not want to ask some ques- 
 tions, gentlemen, with regard to this scheme, or express your opinion ? 
 We would be glad to hear what ycu think of it. 
 
 Mr. More. Would this be in competition with the present middle- 
 men \ 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Adept the plan here proposed and there will b9 no 
 middlemen. 
 
 Mr. More. You are supposed to substitute this at once for the 
 present channels ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. It will not do it the first day, but it will do so gradu- 
 ally- In the end it will keep the middleman out completely. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. What will be your method of getting 
 rid of the middleman? Supposing lie wanted to remain in business; 
 did not want to be ousted ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. He could be employed by the farmers. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. You could not compel him to, unless 
 there was some legislation. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. There would be no necessity for any legislation. If 
 the middleman could not get the goods which makes him a middle- 
 man it would do away with him as middleman for that kind of goods. 
 Remove the goods from the reach of the middleman and it settles 
 the whole proposition. They haven't got them in Europe, and they 
 do not need them here. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. A department storekeeper is a middleman. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. So he is, but he need not suffer through this. The aid 
 that he will give to this work will make him sell more neckties, shoes, 
 shirts, and hats, and dry goods. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. Then it would be only the food products that this 
 would apply to ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. But is not all this rather a paternalistic idea than a 
 democratic one ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Why? 
 
 Mr. Hampton. Would it not reduce the farmers simply to sitting back 
 in their chairs and seeing some of these big experience men plan and 
 do the work for them instead of making it a real cooperative scheme ? 
 Here is a scheme in skeleton, which Mr. Wanamaker or Mr. Rosen- 
 wald and other big operators are to put in operation and organize 
 without any detail of the plan until it has been developed and become 
 
14 MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 knyvvn to the mass of the people, the producers and consumers, the 
 producers, realizing that they will be in the hands of beneficent 
 people, will come to these exchanges and bring their produce; and, 
 naturally, of course, if you establish markets, it does not take long 
 for a consumer to realize that he can get those things there cheaper. 
 That side of it is a simple problem, but it seems to be a much more 
 complex problem to get this thing organized, with the producers 
 having their produce flowing into these pits and exchanges that are 
 organized almost and I should say, in this phoenix, built-up-in-a- 
 night kind of way. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Well, it seems built up in a night, but in the first place 
 you should bear in mind that the majority of this committee are 
 farmers. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. Of course, I am interested in the farmers but I have 
 never yet been able to see that we can move with lightning speed in 
 any such organization. It is one of our greatest struggles to make a 
 success of our various cooperative enterprises. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. That is exactly it, and I am glad you brought this 
 point up. In the first place, you inferred that these great department 
 store merchants on the committee would pretty soon take hold of 
 things and swing this poor, innocent, slow-going farmer along, and 
 that he would have, willy-nilly, to go along; that he would be the 
 tail to the kite. I want to answer that by saying that the farmer 
 would not have to be the tail to the kite, because he would be the 
 majority of the committee. If, for instance, there were 15 others on 
 the committee, one a carrier, one a banker, one a merchant, etc., 
 there would all the time be 18 farmers solid. So it could not be that 
 the poor farmers would innocently ride into this proposition, for the 
 reason that the farmers would be in the majority on the committee. 
 Now to answer the other half of your proposition, that the poor 
 farmers go slow, etc.: Of course, he is slow. Whoever said that he was 
 
 Suick % He is not in a line of business where he is going to get quick, 
 iut these other men, especially the great merchants, they are quick; 
 they know how to sell goods; you do not need to teach them how to 
 sell. They have got it at the ends of their fingers. Now then, in this 
 committee you are uniting the slowest end of the line, the conserva- 
 tive, the farmer, with the fellow who knows how to do things quickly; 
 when you get a combination of that kind you have got very nearly as 
 good a machine as the Landwirtschaftsrat proposition would be, 
 and probably for the start, even better. But, of course, this committee 
 work could not be carried on free of charge for an indefinite period, 
 and to continue a commission of the kind that I speak of under a 
 salary would be a very expensive job; but it would not be at all 
 necessary, for no sooner would this committee be at work and whip 
 the plan in shape than it would be followed soon with a Land- 
 wirtschaftsrat. 
 
 _ The Assistant Secretary. Is it your idea to have an organiza- 
 tion of that kind in each State ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. You would make the State the unit ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes; the State would be the unit. There would be first 
 of all the national commission appointed by the President of the 
 United States, and then the State commission, most likely to be ap- 
 pointed by the governors of each State; then the State commission 
 
MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 15 
 
 would appoint the county commission, and the county commission 
 would appoint the township commission. Besides these commissions 
 there would be the field agents, the interstate factors, under the 
 Department of Commerce and under the Department of Agriculture, 
 and perhaps under the Interstate Commerce Commission. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. How is that done in Germany ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. It is not done. There, it is the Landwirtschaftsrat 
 which begins with township, then county, then State, then Province, 
 and then up to the Nation. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Yes; but how are the individuals of 
 that organization selected ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. By votes. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. On the progressive system of repre- 
 sentation ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Representation, yes; as it is here. 
 
 Mr. More. Do they undertake any of the marketing? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. They do the whole thing. They attend to the farmers' 
 business. The national commission of 72 men do what I am proposing 
 here that the commission should do. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. Those 72 men in Germany are allowed to do the 
 marketing of farm products what the Federal Reserve Board will do 
 here with banks ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. To some extent, yes; only that the Federal Reserve 
 Board is an official body, whereas in Germany it is semiofficial. 
 
 Mr. More. Would the national commission you propose take 
 California oranges and put them in the New York markets 
 
 Mr. Lubin. No; they would say how this is to be done. The 
 commission of 72 men in Germany, the Landwirtschaftsrat, do not 
 actually take a lot of eggs in a basket and run to town with them 
 and sell them. They simply direct. 
 
 Mr. More. Then you have got to build up a system of middlemen 
 under them to take the place of the ones we have now ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. No; there is no need of that, for the helpers in this 
 work are employees; they are not middlemen. This does away with 
 the middleman and therefore does away with the trust. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. How are they compensated, by salary 
 or commission ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. You mean the national commission? 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. No; the men that do the actual work. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Oh, they are employees and it depends on the by-laws 
 of the association or upon contracts made by individuals. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Don't you want to ask any questions, 
 gentlemen ? It is a good thing to get a very complete understanding 
 of this. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. I should like, Mr. Chairman, to ask the gentlemen 
 present for any criticism on the matter here presented, as this sub- 
 ject is not foreign to their business. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. Is there an official from the Bureau of Markets of the 
 Agricultural Department here ? That seems properly to come under 
 their province. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. There is a representative, is there not ? 
 
 Mr. More. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. White. Yes, sir. 
 
16 MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Would you bo kind enough to tell us 
 how this impresses you ? Perhaps it is not a new thing to you. 
 
 Mr. White. My work of handling the office of markets is along 
 transportation lines. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Has any plan of this kind been 
 brought to your notice before ? 
 
 Mr. White. Not to my knowledge; it may have been discussed in 
 other divisions in the office of markets. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Does it look practical to you ? 
 
 Mr. White. I do not know that I fully understand it. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. That is one reason why I wanted to 
 have you ask Mr. Lubin questions, if it is not perfectly clear. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. I will be willing to answer any question that I am 
 able, if you will ask me. 
 
 Mr. White. Those employees under this body of 72 men (Land- 
 wirschaftsrat) that you speak of, are they also producers, or are they 
 merely employees of those 72 in handling the machinery of distri- 
 bution? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. It would be mainly the employees of the township 
 organizations that would do the work. 
 
 Mr. More. Producers' organizations ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Producers' organizations, yes; and of individual pro- 
 ducers independent of organizations, it would not be necessary for 
 a man to be a member of a cooperative organization in order for him 
 to be permitted space, say, in the open-air market, in the auction 
 room or other sales facilities. The by-laws to provide that such 
 individuals receive the same advantages that are given to members 
 of cooperative associations. The modes of procedure in each State 
 would be designated, the larger body — 
 
 Mr. White (interposing). The State body? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes; the State commission would have the power to 
 appoint the county commission and the county commission that of 
 the township. Let us sav that the township committee is in session, 
 in addition to the national and State regulations which they received; 
 they adopt their own special by-laws not in conflict with national 
 and State regulations which they have received, and then proceed 
 to carry on the business for which they have been appointed. 
 
 Mr. Zimmerman. In other words, the national commission will be 
 in the nature of a clearing house ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes; that is right. 
 
 Mr. Zimmerman. It will take care of the situation where three 
 carloads of peaches are sent to a city where there ought to be one, 
 and one where there ought to be three. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes; in a measure. While the main work of direction 
 will be in the hands of the national commission and the State com- 
 missions, the principal labor and carrying on the practical work of 
 distribution will be in the hands of the smaller bodies — the county 
 and township committees. 
 
 Mr. Zimmerman. It will result in the acme of cooperation — is 
 that it ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes. Without all this organization, and it may take 
 25 years before the fanner gets cooperation. With this proposal in 
 working order he arrives at cooperation right away. 
 
 Mr. More. If he accepts it ? 
 
 i 
 
MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 17 
 
 Mr. Lubin. But he will not be able to help himself by accepting it 
 if it will pay him better than under the present conditions. 
 
 Mr. More. It would take a bunch of money to finance it. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. No; it would not. 
 
 Mr. More. For instance, on your New York market. I was there 
 one Monday morning recently and on one dock were about 350 car- 
 loads unloading and they were sold and hauled away in the course of 
 three or four hours. The freight had to be paid on all of that and in 
 order to sell it, of course, a great number of salesmen went to a large 
 number of jobbers. They took it to their houses, resold it to the 
 retailer 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Sold what? 
 
 Mr. More. Cabbages, onions, canteloupes, oranges, potatoes, cu- 
 cumbers, lemons, etc. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. Farm products ? 
 
 Mr. More. Farm produce. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. What was it all done by — an organization ? 
 
 Mr. More. No; this was on the Pennsylvania docks in New York 
 City. That was merely one morning's receipts on one dock, to feed 
 New York City. The freight on that, of course, was a great deal, 
 and all the machinery to handle that. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. I do not think there is any need to worry on that score. 
 Take it in the instance of California fruits, two train loads are sold in 
 a couple of hours and so with ilorida fruits. 
 
 Mr. More. California and Florida fruits are a given quality and 
 almost national standards. When you get to vegetables and produce, 
 on which the standards are not so established, it makes it more 
 difficult. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Not necessarily. There is no greater difficulty in 
 buying or selling potatoes than there is fruits, in fact, not so much. 
 You can sell potatoes just as well as you can grapes. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. Mr. Lubin, who do you think would eventually benefit 
 under this system that you propose ? 
 . Mr. Lubin. The farmer and the public. 
 
 Mr. White. Under your State organization, the State body would 
 control the distribution and the marketing of all the products of the 
 State? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. No, no; they would not. 
 
 Mr. White. They would direct it? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. There may be any number of farmers that would say 
 "I won't join the union," or "I prefer to sell to the trust." There is 
 perfect liberty for every producer and every consume]'. 
 
 Mr. White. That is the question that I was just going to ask. 
 Wherein would machinery of that kind and an organization of that 
 kind be any more efficient than, for instance, your exchanges of 
 to-day in handling the orange crop of California? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Well, if the orange crop is already being taken care of, 
 that settles the matter so far as oranges are concerned. But we want 
 to do all this with potatoes, with chickens, with meat products, with 
 butter, with eggs, with cheese, and a thousand and one different farm 
 products. The handling of California and Florida fruits through the 
 exchanges have been brought up. It undoubtedly is a great improve- 
 ment over the former system of handling the fruits of California, 
 
 S. Doc. 579, 63-2 2 
 
18 MARKETING OP FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 through the Porter Co. and the Earl Co. on the one hand and the 
 railroad con pany on the other. These three exerted a decidedly 
 deteriorating influence on what is now the primary industry of the 
 State of California, and besides that the older system deprived mil- 
 lions of people throughout the United States from the privilege of 
 enjoying California fruits, and at last Mr. Huntington was convinced 
 that that kind of a policy was ruinous to his railway. He became 
 convinced that the real integrity of a railroad share was centered in 
 the earning power of the farmers on each side of the railway track, 
 and the conversion of Mr. Huntington to this idea helped to emanci- 
 pate the fruit industry of California from the oppressive thraldom of 
 the trusts. 
 
 But yet not altogether so, for the fruit exchanges lacked the cash 
 money to carry on their work to the best advantage. Whenever the 
 Landschaft system of rural credits will be in operation, when the pro- 
 ducers will be able to get money at from 3, 3£, and 4 per cent a year, 
 as the farmers in Germany do, then they will be able to handle the 
 fruit interest under the exchanges very much better than they can 
 to-day. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. Would the system that you propose work on perish- 
 able commodities such as canteloupes and tomatoes ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. I know a community down in Delaware where they 
 raise a lot of tomatoes. When the tomatoes are first brought to this 
 country they bring 25 cents, but there is a rush, and they ripen all 
 at once, and then they go down to 8 cents. Those that haven't got 
 a contract at 8 cents can't get 6; they can't get a contract at all. 
 What are you going to do with those tomatoes, ripening all at the 
 same time? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Please observe, if you could give every tomato and 
 cantaloupe a new intelligence when they would begin to talk to the 
 farmer they would say to the farmer, "Why, you darn fool, what are 
 you sending me to that market for? Don't you know that it is 
 glutted ? Have a little horse sense; send me right over there, please; 
 there's where I should go." And if the tomato and cantaloupe could 
 talk to the railroad they would say, "Why are you backing and for- 
 warding to and fro and wasting time for a few stray boxes ? Why 
 don't you arrange affairs so that there is no loss of time in having us 
 gathered together and put on the train?" 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. I can see that in regard to the melon, but I can not 
 in regard to the tomato, because the tomato is canned for the next 
 winter season. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. So the producer cans them ? 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. Yes; they have to be canned. You can not use all 
 those tomatoes at that time. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Very good; but there is a market for canned goods as 
 well as for uncanned; but, first of all, let us consider what I was 
 talking about. If those products could get up and talk horse sense 
 to the farmer, and if the farmer would obey the tomatoes, the canta- 
 loupes, the carrots, it would then be all right; but as we can not 
 expect vegetables to think and to talk, where, then, is the remedy? 
 This: That man has got to do the thinking and the talking; that's 
 why he is a man. But if a man is too lazy to do that, then he is no 
 different fiom the poor Indian, for he is hardly yet civilized; is too 
 
MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 19 
 
 stupid, too indolent, and too unintelligent to understand, and so 
 other intelligences will have to do thinking for him. For instance, 
 President b ipley of the Santa Fe Railway, about four or five months 
 ago, devised a system that rebukes every farmer out there, and what 
 President F ipley devised should really have been devised by the 
 farmers along the road. "Have your things ready and we will come 
 along and pick them up for the market, and you will see to the mar- 
 keting of them." See the amount of ingenuity, skill, and thought that 
 is put into machine and hand labor in the weaving of a yard of cloth, 
 the price of which may be less than 10 cents; and if the farmer put the 
 same amount of thought in his work, not merely in production, but in 
 distribution, would not that ingenuity, skill, and thought pay a 
 dividend ? It certainly would, and a large dividend, too. 
 
 But are we to infer from all of this that the farmers in Germany 
 and in other European countries are so very much more intelligent 
 than are the American farmers? By no means. The European 
 farmer is not any more intelligent than the farmer in the United 
 States; in fact he is a great deal less intelligent, but it happens to be 
 the fashion in European countries for the thinking men to think and 
 to devise ways which shall be effective in promoting the best eco- 
 nomic interests of the farmers, partly for the farmers' sake and 
 partly for the consumers' sake. If the densely populated countries 
 of Europe were to permit the food product of those countries to 
 drift into the hands of trusts, to be manipulated by trusts, it would 
 create a state of perpetual famine and starvation in those European 
 countries. It would soon create revolutionary uprisings, and it is, 
 perhaps, for this reason that the wisest minds of Europe are guiding 
 the farmer along the path he should travel. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. Don't you think that it is easier to put it in operation 
 there on account of the thickly settled communities, with small area 
 to be covered, and density of the population ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. I do not think you have hit the point by this postulate. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. Possibly not. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. For this reason. The European countries are at the 
 same time the most thickly settled and the most thinly settled in 
 the world. You have the two kinds. You have the farmer in Euro- 
 pean countries, with his quarter and half of an acre or one acre of 
 land, and he is quite some sort of a nabob with five acres. But, then, 
 you have also got the farmers that have 10,000, 20,000, and 50,000 
 acres of land. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. Oh, yes. I was referring to the population itself, 
 where you market the stuff; the density of population in cities. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. You mean the eating — the consuming people ? 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Surely we have enough of these. There are perhaps no 
 consumers in the whole world that afford a better demand than those 
 of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. But we have got a long distance to carry. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Why ? 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. Certain fruits and vegetables have to go long distances. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. It seems to me that in reality we have shorter dis- 
 tances because we have more railways. And in addition to this 
 we are not hampered by tariff restrictions, as they are in Europe. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. That is what I wanted to find out. 
 
20 MARKETING OF FAEM PEODUCTS. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. One advantage that they have got which we have not 
 got is good roads. We ought to have good roads, but of railways 
 I do not think there is any other country in the world that exceeds 
 this country in density. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Mr. White, did you get a satisfactory 
 answer to your question ? 
 
 Mr. White. I do not know that I fully understand the scheme yet. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. What part don't you understand ? 
 
 Mr. White. As I gathered at first, this was to supplant all selling 
 organizations that we have in existence, but Mr. Lubin has explained 
 that it was not to take the place of any present efficient organization. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. No; it is to be purely voluntary. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. There are cooperative creameries around the country, 
 but all farmers do not belong to them. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Certainly. The presumption is that the mode here 
 proposed would afford real economic advantages. At the present time 
 there is no systematic method of synchronizing the products or of 
 hours of disposing of them. Hence, and apart from any undue 
 profits to the trusts or middlemen, there is a great economic waste 
 which the proposed project would obviate. Let us take the economic 
 improvements in storekeeping, for instance, of the present day, from 
 what it was 50 years ago. Fifty years ago there were lumbering 
 wooden shutters to put on the show windows every night. After 
 that came the rolling iron shutters, and now there are no shutters 
 at all. 
 
 And then take the hours. Some of the stores opened at 6 o'clock 
 in the morning and the better class at 7. The closing hour was 
 9.30 to 10 o'clock at night, but at the present time stores open at 
 8 o'clock and close at 5. In former times the proprietor deemed it 
 his duty to teach his sales people how to become skillful liars. At the 
 present time the salesman that utters a lie is dismissed in disgrace. 
 In former times it took hours of bargaining and beating down, and 
 threats to leave the shop, and oftentimes downright insults hi the 
 attempt to do buying or selling. But to-day the price is marked 
 plainly, and that ends all bickering. And all those things and many 
 more in place of ruining the business of storekeeping, has in fact 
 built it up so that some of the great retail business houses now do 
 business by the million that was in olden times done by the thousand. 
 And so with the business of farming. It should improve on the same 
 lines, in order to entitle it to the credit of living in the twentieth 
 century. If all the economic phases would be introduced into the 
 business of farming that would apply to it as was done in store- 
 keeping, the farmer would make very much more money than he has 
 ever made in the history of his calling, and at the same time work 
 his hands perhaps half the time that they work to-day, and at very 
 much greater pay, and with very much greater comfort. And is not 
 all this worth while trying for? However, once let the advantage be 
 made evident and there will be no necessity for argument. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. If I understand your scheme, it is to converge the 
 feelings of the consumer and the farmer to the present status of the 
 high cost of living; to converge their thoughts toward the proposed 
 markets — the open markets — free from present conditions and taking 
 the producer, with his unsatisfactory selling prices, and converging 
 his thoughts along the lines of cooperation, so as to get larger profits ; 
 
MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 21 
 
 and simply, by the O. K., as you may say, of the Government, the su- 
 pervision of the Government, be enabled to bring these things together 
 to a harmonious system of commerce, selling pits or exchanges, and 
 markets to which the consumer can come and buy these things; is 
 that it ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. I want to answer your question, perhaps a little differ- 
 ently from what you expect; but I think it will answer it all right. . If 
 an attempt were made to realize my proposal by the people, say, of 
 Sacramento County, it might take them 10 years before they would 
 understand what they were driving at. There would have to be a few 
 heroic pioneers there who would about work themselves to death, and 
 they would be likely to be gray haired before they could succeed in 
 doing something in a couple of villages in that county. But take it in 
 the case of the proposed plan — the appointment by the United States 
 Government — by the President of the United States — of the national 
 commission. The recognized merit of the men appointed, the pub- 
 licity that this would engender not merely in Sacramento County 
 [hesitating] ; and can you give me any counties in Connecticut ? 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Litchfield. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes, Litchfield and Sacramento; hi every county, in 
 every State, and in every State in the Union, and beyond the border 
 into Canada, and the press, and the people, would immediately say, 
 "The United States has got a great proposition up. What is up? 
 Why, they have something like this." And then Tom, Dick, and 
 Harry begin reading, and they say, "I wonder how that is going to 
 affect the trust? What do you think, Mary Ann?" He is talking 
 to his wife, to his aunt, or to his cousin, or to his neighbors. And 
 it can be reasonably expected when this marketing machinery is set 
 up it will set the whole country going; it is a new thing; its publicity 
 is so widespread and the sympathy for its success is so strong that 
 it succeeds with a rush, and it becomes a flow without ebb. And 
 were you to try to do all this with a little local committee, by itself 
 and for itself, you would have to wait a long time before anything 
 that is here thought of would be realized. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. Who buys the contents of those little markets, the 
 consumers ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. What are they going to do with the oversupply ? 
 There is bound to be an oversupply. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Well, if he eats too much he will have to take medicine. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. Oh, if he eats too much; but if he raises too much 
 for the market? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. But, my dear sir, you have got the United States to 
 supply. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. That is it; and then you will have to ship it out; it 
 will have to be shipped to some other place. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Certainly. Here is a consumer that wants breakfast 
 and wants 1 cantaloupe, and if you bring him 15 cantaloupes you 
 have 14 too many. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. Exactly; that is what I wanted to bring out. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. But that does not mean that you must bring in 15 
 cantaloupes when only 1 is needed. Cooperation will tell when 
 and where the 1 cantaloupe is to be brought and when and where 
 
22 MARKETING OF PAEM PRODUCTS. 
 
 the 15 cantaloupes are to be brought, and you will not have a whole 
 bunch lying around doing no good. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. They are just as good there as on the vines if they 
 are ready to bring in. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. In cooperation the 14 cantaloupes will find their way — 
 let me give this illustration: In California we have a curious tribe of 
 Indians called Flatheads. They are not flattening their heads any 
 more, but if you read the Encyclopedia Britannica articles, you will 
 find that originally they had a board or stone which they fastened 
 on the foreheads of the children, and the child that had the most 
 retreating forehead was deemed the prettiest. Now, the women of 
 that tribe of Indians have no such things as combs and brushes, and 
 so an accumulation of minerals, vegetables, and animals regularly 
 occurs in their hair, and when this becomes unbearably troublesome 
 they go down to the creek and smear their heads full of what is com- 
 monly called "dobee," the kind of earth that they make the adobe 
 buildings out of, and when this "dobee" dries it is hard as a stone, 
 but when it is wet it is like molasses. After smearing their heads 
 with this "dobee," they sit in the sun and by and by it becomes as 
 impervious to air as a glazed pot. And so, when they think the 
 animals are all dead they go down to the creek again and wash off 
 the "dobee" and then they are clean for quite awhile. 
 
 Well, that is about the way that we are marketing our products 
 at the present time. Now, the European way of marketing is, as it 
 were, to use a comb and brush; all is regulated and with design. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. What I am trying to bring out is this — that if your 
 scheme works it will have to be on a limited number of products. 
 You can not take all the products indiscriminately and work this 
 thing because you have not the time. You can not find out the 
 market for canteloupes because the canteloupes are going to rot the 
 next day. Tomatoes are the same way and the other perishable 
 staples. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. The same kind of a story was probably told the man 
 who first thought of the department-store idea. How will one man 
 know how to buy stoves and eyeglasses, and women's hats, and slop 
 buckets, and opera cloaks? There is not a product that is worth 
 anything but what it has some ultimate market. But how can a 
 producer know when, where, and how to find it? And even if he 
 could, it would not pay him unless he was accompanied by the 
 products of a great many others with the same end in view that he 
 has. What is known about these ultimate markets? Little or 
 nothing by the farmer. Just a very little by the commission mer- 
 chant; a little more yet by the wholesale dealer, and almost all that 
 is to be known by the trust. Now, in cooperation, you bring all that 
 knowledge together; you coordinate the knowledge of each and every 
 one, and presently you know how much, when, and where to send 
 that which is perishable and that which is not. Through cooperation 
 we have got the best intelligence. If there are 50 producers in the 
 cooperation you can get the best knowledge of the 50. Besides that, 
 through this you can get the best knowledge of your carrier and the 
 best knowledge of the consumer. You, therefore, through coopera- 
 tion, have the best knowledge in place of having no knowledge at all. 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. The average city person goes along the country road 
 and sees a lot of tomatoes rotting on the vines; also cantaloupes, 
 
MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 23 
 
 and he will say, "Why don't you pick them?" The reason that the 
 man did not pic*k those is that he did not have enough to take to 
 market that day. He just had to let them stay there. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. What does that man know of marketing ? 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. He did not have enough; he could not afford to make 
 the trip. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Supposing he made the trip. What would he have 
 known of the market ? 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. He would not know anything. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. As a member of a cooperative body he would have 
 known ; but, as it is, what is the market to him ? What is he to the 
 market ? He knows nothing. Now, cooperation brings intelligence, 
 brings light. Ask the farmer in Europe that stamps the date on 
 each egg, "What do you do that for?" "Well," he says, "you can 
 see the date on that; you can see how old the egg is." "But, sup- 
 posing you lied?" "Oh, we don't dare lie. It would do a great 
 injury to the business of Denmark." Or, again, ask him, "Where 
 do these go?" And he will be able to tell you every step; but the 
 producer that sells to the trust buyer — what would that man know ? 
 What would a hundred of them know, what would a thousand of 
 them know, what would ten thousand of them know? So far as 
 commercial knowledge is concerned, knowledge of the best markets, 
 they know little or nothing. Such producers are as those in an in- 
 vaded city. They are in the same position as the tobacco growers are 
 in the paper that I handed you. These tobacco growers are hemmed 
 around by the Dukes, the Lorillards, and the "regie" buyers of 
 European Government monopolies. What power have these pro- 
 ducers inside that mighty circle? Absolutely none. All that such 
 a tobacco producer knows is that he has got to bring his bunches of 
 tobacco down to that place and put it on that shelf or this table. 
 What then ? That's all. That is his ultimate market. All the other 
 knowledge is known to the trust, and the trust pays itself well for 
 .that knowledge. Why shouldn't it? There is no sin in running a 
 trust. If there is any sin at all, it is in the stupidity of the producer 
 that makes the trust possible. 
 
 Let this producer learn to break through this invading ring, the 
 encircling ring of the trust, which is choking the life out of him. We 
 put out fires by taking away the oxygen. Pen the seller around by a 
 few buyers and you choke all commercial knowledge away from him. 
 The trust has knowledge; the producer, without cooperation, has 
 no knowledge. He can get the knowledge of the trust if he does the 
 same thing that the trust is doing, and then there will not be any 
 trust; but if we expect that putting something in the papers to the 
 effect that some trust men are to behave themselves or they will get 
 "penalized"; if we think this kind of tactics is going to straighten 
 out the whole proposition, then, of course, we will be greatly mistaken. 
 " It is to laugh," said the man in the play, and it does not take a great 
 depth of imagination for us to perceive the broad grin on the counte- 
 nance of the trust magnate as a result of this threat. Of course, from a 
 political point of view, it may do some vote fetching. When Mary 
 Ann says to Tom, "See this in the paper, Tom; the Government is 
 going to put all them trust fellows in jail. What do you think of 
 that ?" But if Tom has got any horse sense he would be likely to say, 
 "You and I, Mary Ann, will never live long enough to see any of them 
 
24 MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 trust fellows in jail for charging high prices." And now, Mr. Chair- 
 man, I am done with my statement. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. I would like, Mr. Luhin, to state very 
 briefly the impression this has all made on my mind, and have you 
 correct me in any misconception I may have. You have alluded to 
 your own connection with the fruit industry of California. I take it 
 that you want us to regard that as a sort of object lesson in coopera- 
 tive selling which, in your opinion, might, with suitable variations, be 
 applied to all kinds of food products raised by farmers ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. No. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. But the general principle of that 
 cooperative selling could be applied, with certain modifications, to 
 other farm products ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. No. I would try to correct that statement by this, 
 that the California fruit industry labor was, after all, a crude 
 attempt. My proposal here is to copy the much more perfected 
 system in operation in Europe. The California fruit proposition is 
 still in a crude shape; it has not yet been perfected. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. I did not mean to be understood as 
 saying that you considered that to be ideal, but that a measure of 
 cooperation had been secured there that has brought about far better 
 results in California than the old system of selling fruits. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Or the present system of marketing 
 farm products all over the country? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Now, in answer to some of the ques- 
 tions that have been asked you with regard to the glutting of markets, 
 oversupply in some particular localities, and that sort of thing, my 
 understanding is that your position is that greater intelligence, a 
 more complete knowledge of what is wanted in various localities, 
 would be secured through this method of cooperation than is being 
 secured under the present system; in fact, that practically no intelli- 
 gence is being exercised under the present system. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. That is right; except by the trust. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. I know; I mean by the producers them- 
 selves. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes, by the producers themselves. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. And that under the system that you 
 propose, produce would only be sent, in the main to where they were 
 needed. I do not understand you to claim that there might not be 
 some comparatively small mistakes, just as the trust right now make 
 mistakes. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Exactly. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. But that a reasonably high degree of 
 intelligence and discrimination would be made in the selection of 
 markets. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. And then with reference to the trust, 
 I understand your position to be that practically the producer would 
 be his own trust. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. He would then have a degree of intel- 
 ligence and discrimination brought to bear upon the marketing of 
 
MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 25 
 
 his produce that the trusts bring to bear upon the marketing of some 
 other person's produce; that with the profits of the trust, which is 
 now supposed to be unreasonably large, with a very small compen- 
 sation — inadequate, most of the farmers think — to the producers, 
 and a very exorbitant price from the standpoint of the consumer, 
 that he pays for the products, the trust between the two is getting 
 rich very fast, and your idea is that both the producer and consumer 
 would be greatly benefited by this method. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Correct. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. And the producers would come in 
 voluntarily, because it would be to their interest to do so ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. You are proceeding upon the theory 
 that self-interest is the strongest motive power that you can apply ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. That is right. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. And that both the producer and the 
 purchaser would have a strong self-interest in this arrangement and 
 that that would practically secure an almost universal adoption of 
 this method when it was thoroughly understood and put in practice, 
 because it would pay them both to do it that way rather than through 
 the methods that are now in vogue. Is not that true ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. I want to state, Mr. Chairman, that if I had your power 
 of expression I would have made greater headway that I have. A 
 great deal of my poking around in trying to make this matter clear 
 to this meeting is because while I feel this question very keenly and 
 clearly, you seem to be able to set it forth very plainly. You are now 
 explaining what I am trying to get at. Now we can understand what 
 is before us. I wish you could continue in just the same way. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. I don't know what you want of me, 
 Mr. Lubin. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. Lubin. I want you to say what I wanted to say. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. It is perfectly evident that you are 
 after something. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Certainly I was after something. I came here to ex- 
 plain; I thought I did explain, but nobody seemed to understand 
 what I said except you. It therefore seems that you can make what 
 I want to say clearer to those present than I can and I consider that 
 a rare gift. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Well, I am trying to tell you the 
 impression it made upon me, because it was a new subject, and, in 
 fact, I must confe s my ignorance in which this is being done in 
 Europe. You have been studying it, and I am very glad, indeed, 
 to learn about it. I suppose that there are opportunities for read- 
 ing about it and studying it, but it certainly has not fallen to my 
 lot to run across any description until I listened to yours; and I 
 dare say that I absorb more by this kind of conversation with a 
 person who has been right there and witnessed it than I would from 
 reading about it. 
 
 I do not see, gentlemen, anything ab.-urd or impracticable about 
 that, do you? Don't you think it could be worked out? 
 
 Mr. Hirsch. There would be a world of detail to be taken up. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. We have a^ked Mr. Lubin a lot of 
 questions that he has not answered to our entire satisfaction in con- 
 nection with these details; but the real point, as I understand it, is 
 
26 MAEKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 this : That if we understand the general principle, and we are work- 
 ing toward a particular end, and bring to bear upon these questions 
 of detail our own intelligence, we will work out a plan. 
 
 It may not be exactly the plan that he has in his mind, or that 
 is in vogue in Europe. It may be that conditions here would de- 
 mand some changes in these plans; that the disposition of our people 
 is such that something different would be required; but that is for 
 us to figure out, so far as the details are concerned. Is not that your 
 idea, Mr. Lubin? You do not pretend to tell us just how every 
 little part of this ought to be done; your idea is just to give the 
 general plan and have us work out the details ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes; in fact, I have the details of the cooperative 
 institutions here, if you want to use them, and as for the questions 
 I have not answered, I will be pleased to have them restated, just 
 what those questions were. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Is it not possible that some of them 
 would not apply in this country? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes; perhaps some. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. You might need material variations 
 from that plan. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. The heart of the question is this, Which could do the 
 work more intelligently, the farmer or the trust, the individual farmer 
 who handles some miscellaneous farm products which he produces 
 or the trust that handles thousands and hundreds of thousands and 
 millions of dollars' worth of these products ? Who is the better mer- 
 chant of the two, the farmer who operates 40 acres of land or the 
 trust man? Which do you think is the better business man of the 
 two ? 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. I should say that if you would examine 
 their respective bank accounts that would answer the question 
 correctly. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Well, which? Which of the two is the better business 
 man? 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. I should say that the man who is 
 manipulating the trust, purely from the business standpoint; the 
 one who shows ability. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Yes; you are right; there is no question about it; 
 there is no comparison. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. He is the one who also makes the 
 money. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Of course he does; but now let us go one step further. 
 Which is the more intelligent ? The trust man in the United States 
 or the cooperation in Europe? Let us say the Danish cooperation 
 that handles the butter and eggs. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Possibly there might not be any very 
 great difference. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Well, right here you must give credit to the Danish 
 organization, rather than to the trust, for this reason: The trust has 
 much more intelligence than the common, ordinary farmer has here — 
 the unorganized farmer. His intelligence is limited, however, to the 
 information that he receives from the heads of his department that 
 he comes in contact with and the merchants that he comes in contact 
 with. But with the European trust which, in fact, is the farmers' 
 trust, if there be 500 farmers in that group you have got the intelli- 
 
MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 27 
 
 gence of every one of those 500 farmers bunched into one organiza- 
 tion, and you have got a better, clearer intelligence than the trust 
 has. Though the trust man may be a sharper man himself, as an 
 individual, yet collectively the little bit of information that this 
 clumsy, slow farmer can give here, and another little bit of informa- 
 tion there, and when all this is accumulated together, it makes a 
 coherent working intelligence that is much keener than the trust has 
 here. So you have the highest intelligence in the German coopera- 
 tion or in the Danish cooperation, on the one hand, and the next 
 highest, the trust in the United States, and finally the poorest com- 
 mercial intelligence at all, the unorganized American farmer, and if 
 we follow the path that logic would lead us, we are compelled to come 
 to the conclusion that with organization the American farmer will 
 lead, as the most intelligent, economic entity in all the world. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Now, Mr. Lubin, I would like to ask 
 you a question which I think is very practical. What should this 
 department do — or any department of the Government — to bring 
 about this better condition? What practical steps do you think 
 ought to be taken? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Well, I would suggest the following: The statements 
 of the President have gone forward to the people of the United States. 
 I refer to the statements on the high cost of living. It is a sober 
 statement and is likely to arrest the attention of sober people of this 
 country. The statement of the President has created curiosity; the 
 curiosity of the farmer, the curiosity of the trust, and the curiosity 
 of the people everywhere. The question is pertinent enough, but 
 what will it all amount to ? Of course, it will wake up the poor, rich 
 trust men ; they will rub their eyes and say, "What is the matter with 
 the President, what is he up to," and some of the trust fellows will 
 give the President the old cry that used to be given for Hanna "What's 
 the matter with Hanna?" "Oh, he's all right," and some of the 
 other trust men will begin to feel a little uneasy. Is there going to be 
 a fight? Oh, no; for if this proposal is adopted there is to be no 
 fight with the trust at all. For in short order there won't be any 
 trust, for the farmer is going to take this trust job himself and report 
 promptly at the "old stand," all ready for business. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. You have explained very clearly how 
 interest might be stirred up, but I do not quite understand the differ- 
 ent steps to be taken before making any announcement to the public. 
 Is it your idea that the department should get into communication 
 with the people who are to compose the commission ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Perhaps, yes. But you understand that the com- 
 mission in accordance with the proposal is to be appointed by the 
 President of the United States. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. And that we should select them ? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. There can be no objection to that, but of course the 
 appointment of the commission is to be done by the President of the 
 United States. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Well, at present there is no authority 
 to do anything along this line, and it would be entirely outside of any 
 direct legislation. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. I hardly think there is any need for any direct legisla- 
 tion. A joint resolution of Congress could be passed, authorizing the 
 President to make the appointments, and I feel sure that were such a 
 
28 MARKETING OP FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 resolution offered to Congress that they would push everything aside 
 and most likely pass a resolution within 24 or 48 hours. It would 
 seem to me that such a resolution would give the President all the 
 power necessary. 
 
 But, from what we read in the papers, it would seem that even a 
 resolution would be unnecessary, for it was either the President or 
 somebody in the House who said, "We must take the law into our own 
 hands. We have got to do it." If I am not mistaken that was 
 given out by your chief, the Secretary. And so earnest was he in his 
 statement that though staid and dignified as he is, you may remem- 
 ber, he used a swear word in that connection. So one way or another 
 I think the President of the United States can have all the authority 
 necessary for the appointment of a national commission. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. So far as the Department of Com- 
 merce is concerned, how do we reach out into the various States? 
 Or is it your idea that we should restrict our efforts to some particular 
 part of the country? 
 
 Mr. Lubin. This proposal should be made operative throughout 
 the United States, but in a manner to avoid any clash between the 
 national authority and the State authority. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. That is a very important matter. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. It would seem to me that if this matter were taken up 
 seriously a way would be found to avoid all clashing of authority. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. That is the point. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. The President and his advisors, of course, know the 
 law much better than I do. The points we are here raising do not 
 come up under the German system. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. No; they have not the same organiza- 
 tion in the lower units that we have. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. The question we are here considering would, of course, 
 not come under the landwirschaftsrat, but as the proposal is but a 
 temporary substitute for the Landwirtschaftsrat, anticipating it, there 
 should be no great difficulty in adjusting this point in a satisfactory 
 manner. 
 
 Before dismissing this phase of the question it would probably 
 not be deemed out of order to consider just how much of the organizing 
 labors of this project is to be turned over by the President to the 
 Department of Commerce, and how much of it to the Department of 
 Agriculture. I presume the commercial end of the question would 
 probably go to the Department of Commerce. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Yes. Now, that is one of the points 
 that the Department of Agriculture has given a great deal of 
 attention to, has it not, Mr. White ? Is not that regarded as within 
 their functions, rather than ours ? 
 
 Mr. White. The entire office of markets is devoted to that question. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Then, it ought to come under that. 
 
 Mr. White. And one of its activities is along the line of cooperative 
 organization for marketing and distributing products. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Well, why did the President in his talk point to the 
 Department of Commerce, seemingly referring this question of the 
 high cost of living to this department ? Did you read the article ? 
 
 Mr. White. I saw the article; yes. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. The Secretary of this department, in 
 his letter to the Attorney General, I am quite certain, referred to the 
 
MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 29 
 
 Department of Agriculture as being perhaps the proper one to make 
 that investigation, but at the same time he offered to do anything 
 that we could do from this department. We have agents now in 
 seven different large cities, and we have communicated with them 
 and asked them to state to us as soon as possible the conditions exist- 
 ing in those cities, and the causes for those conditions, merely as they 
 are able to ascertain them, with a view of adding to our stock of 
 information and giving us something to work on. 
 
 But, of course, we do not split hairs with regard to what particular 
 part of the Government should take up useful work of this kind. If 
 it is useful, we want to do it; and especially between Agriculture and 
 Commerce. We have a committee that is made up from both 
 departments, that is making a great effort to arrange our work so 
 that neither department will duplicate the work of the other, so that 
 whatever is planned by one department will be understood by the 
 otKer, and one department can take advantage of the work being 
 done by the other. That, I think, is something that ought to be 
 carried out more generally through all the departments than it is; 
 I think a great deal of money would be saved. Don't you think so, 
 Mr. White ? 
 
 Mr. White. Undoubtedly. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. And I think that will be done some 
 day. But the point I was trying to get at was net so much as to 
 whether the Department of Commerce or the Department of Agri- 
 culture should take this up, but as tc what practical steps should be 
 taken by any department of the Government to bring this matter 
 before the people of the country so that it would be generally taken 
 up and put through in a good, practical way, and so that they could 
 get benefits from it. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Well, I would suggest that the very first thing that 
 could be taken up is, that the Secretaries should meet with yourself 
 and seme representative cf the Department of Agriculture and go 
 over what is in that paper, and in this presentation, and come to 
 some tentative conclusions en the subject, and then present those 
 conclusions to the President. 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. Mr. Hampton, is there a prejudice 
 among the farmers in Pennsylvania, as far as you know, against the 
 cooperative system ? 
 
 Mr. Hampton. No; there is a decided feeling strongly in favor of it. 
 The Assistant Secretary. Have not many of them been failures ? 
 Mr. More. Thousands. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. Oh, yes, but these failures were largely caused by 
 defective or ineffective modes of procedure. The cooperative develop- 
 ment, even in Pennsylvania, is much more widespread than people 
 know who have not studied it. Of course, the gentlemen in the 
 department can tell more about it, because when we come to gather 
 our figures we go to these central bureaus for our information. But 
 you know that up to the present time cooperative buying in the 
 granges is more highly developed than cooperative selling. But this 
 proposal, if properly placed before the people, will unquestionably 
 develop cooperative selling as it has never been developed before. 
 The Assistant Secretary. I suppose so. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. And the cooperative selling is engaging their atten- 
 tion at the present time, and the farmers are watching the depart- 
 
30 MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 ment in its Bureau of Markets, not bothering them very much, but 
 watching them with a good deal of interest; somewhat with a micro- 
 scope and somewhat with a telescope. 
 
 Mr. Lubin. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, before this session is 
 closed I wish to add the following observation : 
 
 Substantially the matter stands thus: Let us say that it is a ques- 
 tion of the economic distribution of potatoes, chickens, eggs, butter, 
 meats, cheese, vegetables, fruits— in a word, food products, or even 
 more, farm products. Who can do this to the best advantage of the 
 farmer and the consumer ? Is it the farmer or is it the trust ? There 
 is no question in my mind, and I think I am justified in saying nor is 
 there any question in your mind, that under present conditions the 
 trust can do this very much better than the farmer. Why ? Because 
 the trust is a highly skilled and powerful organization, whereas the 
 farmers are a number of heterogeneous units, unskilled in the art of 
 business. But all this will be changed when once the farmers are 
 intelligently and effectively organized. When this will be done the 
 farmer will then become a far more effective, economic factor than the 
 trust has been, is, or can be. 
 
 It must necessarily follow that an economic movement of this kind, 
 if promoted along rational lines, would soon manifest its utility. It 
 would then not merely serve a transient purpose, but become per- 
 manent. 
 
 And this permanency would not merely prove of value as an eco- 
 nomic factor; it would also prove of the highest value in strengthening 
 the life of the Nation, and thus become an integral part in the political 
 life of this Nation. 
 
 It must also be borne in mind that the justness of cooperative 
 movement would strengthen the political life of this Nation; the per- 
 sistence of the trust must tend to weaken it. What has just been 
 said is true or it is false. If it is false there is an end to the matter, 
 but how is it if it is true ? Can we afford to fold our arms and pas- 
 sively permit the onward march of the deteriorating factors which 
 must sap the life and vigor of this Republic ? 
 
 If the trust is to persist in spite of the fact that what has here been 
 said is well known, then it will persist because evil influences are 
 already so strongly intrenched in our midst as to make their eradi- 
 cation impossible. If that were the case it would be a great misfor- 
 tune, a misfortune not alone to this Republic, but a misfortune to 
 the world, for as this Republic progresses onward it forces the world 
 onward; as it retreats from the light, so the shades of darkness thicken, 
 not merely here, but throughout the world. 
 
 Like the Romans in the time of Augustus Caesar, we point with 
 pride to the splendid progress that we have made, and in all depart- 
 ments that go to make up the sum total of civilization. And last, 
 but by no means least, we point, like the Romans of old, to our splen- 
 did cities. We boast of our marble palaces, of our skyscrapers, and 
 their luxurious furnishings, and we forget that when Rome seemed 
 to blaze with splendor, when she seemed strong and beautiful and 
 mighty, that she had then been "weighed in the balance and found 
 wanting." And so Rome perished. And what killed Rome (and the 
 lesson is a solemn warning) ? It was the trusts that killed Rome; it 
 was the trust that choked the life out of her independent landowning 
 farmer, that drove him from his farm a dependent beggar to Rome. 
 
MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 31 
 
 And how does the matter stand in this Republic in this twentieth 
 century, in this year 1914? We find in the United States Census 
 record that 37 per cent of all the farming lands in these United States 
 are now worked by renters; that 16 per cent of those renters were 
 evolved during the past 10 years. A few more such decades, a few 
 more 16 per cent renters added to the present renters, and this mighty 
 Republic will have perished. 
 
 And if there be truth in what is herein set forth — and who can say 
 that it is not the truth — it must necessarily follow that the life and 
 perpetuity of this Republic is dependent primarily upon obedience 
 to the law, "A just weight and a just measure shall ye have." While 
 the flag is merely a symbol, the "just weight and the just measure" 
 is a reality. And how feeble do our modern economists appear when 
 measured alongside of those mighty heroes, the prophets of the 
 Bible. The summary of all their preaching was ''the just weight 
 and the just measure." In obedience to this sacred injunction we 
 are promised, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." 
 
 Is it then a small matter, thi^, the upbuilding of the cooperative 
 institutions throughout the United States- — institutions which shall 
 replace inequity in exchange by equity? And is this a question 
 which concerns merely the farmers of the land? Does it not con- 
 cern all the people, and in every State in the Union ? 
 
 The Assistant Secretary. I think all of us are very much obliged 
 to Mr. Lubin for giving us such good ideas. 
 
 OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS CONCERNING THE MODE 
 OF MARKETING TOBACCO. 
 
 THE RESTRICTED LOCAL MARKET VERSUS EXTENDED OPEN MARKETS. 
 
 Commenting on the points dealt with in my letter to Dr. True, 
 chairman of the committee on the International Institute of Agri- 
 culture, United States Department of Agriculture, on the tobacco 
 question of March 27, the thought has occurred to me that there is 
 room for questioning the wisdom of the request made by the Farm- 
 ers' Union that purchases of tobacco be made direct of the union. 
 Even supposing that the Italian "regie" monopoly and the other 
 "regie" buyers and the trust buyers were to comply with this re- 
 quest, would not the proposed remedy be still likely to prove of 
 questionable utility? I think so; I think it can be shown that it 
 would be contrary to sound business principles. 
 
 It seems to me that the union's proposal is in line with the views 
 of a certain class of theorists who recommend (a) that the distribu- 
 tion of products should be made by placing the buyer in direct con- 
 tact with the producer; and (b) that this buyer should seek out the 
 product on the farm where it is grown. This, they claim, would be 
 calculated to secure the best economic results to buyer and seller. 
 
 Let us now see if this hypothesis be a correct one. 
 
 An example of this mode of distribution is afforded by the history 
 of the California fruit industry In the early history of that in- 
 dustry various ventures proved that certain high-priced fruits 
 grew abundantly in many sections of California. As a result there 
 
32 MARKETING OP FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 sprang up throughout the State many orchards and vineyards. 
 Right from the start, and so long as the quantity product d was 
 within the demand of the home market, the growers found their 
 business highly profitable. This gave an impetus to the expansion 
 of this industry on a large scale. And then the trouble b;gan. On 
 the one hand the product multiplied on a great scale, but, on the 
 other hand, no provision was made for its distribution outside of the 
 State, oth^r than through a few shippers and a few local canners, 
 who bought up the fruit direct from the farmer and sold it on the 
 eastern markets. This mode surely placed the buyer in direct con- 
 tact with the producer by bringing him to the farm where the product 
 was grown. It was doing for the fruits of California just what the 
 tobacco planters of the Southern States ar^ still doing with their 
 tobacco. But what was the r:sult? It was bad in every way so 
 far as the grower was concerned. It gave the two large buyers, 
 the Portr Bros, and the Earle Co., a practical monopoly in fixing 
 the price of the fruits in California, and as a result the fruit growers 
 were face to face with bankruptcy and ruin. 
 
 At this juncture the growers were fortunately aided by the advice 
 and energy of men familiar with the laws of trade. As a residt there 
 was a change of base in the disposition of the product; instead of 
 being sold on the farm to a few big buyers, the fruits of California 
 were sent by the growers themselves to the East and West, and were 
 disposed of on the growers' account at auction in the primipal cities 
 of the Union. As a result of this new method of distribution, it 
 became easier to sell two trainloads of fruit in a day in New York, 
 for instanee, than it used to be to sell one carload under the trust 
 regime. This newer system of distribution largely freed the Cali- 
 fornia growers from the deadly coils of the all-em m ling trust. 
 
 Thus we see that the system which places the buyer in direct con- 
 tact with the pr xlucer by bringing him to the farm where the product 
 is grown, is not conducive to the economic welfare of the farmer. 
 On the contrary, under this system the farmer becomes, as it were, the 
 "under dog," the hungry clog tussling with a bare, gristly bone. 
 
 In fact, the close approach of a few large buyers surrounding the 
 district producing the crops which they wish to purchase, may be 
 compared to the besieging of a city by an invading force of irresistible 
 power. Closer and closer these few buyers hem in the farmer in the 
 producing district, until finally closing up the ranks, they stifle all 
 sound commercial practices and instincts in the seller. And thus 
 those few buyers succeed in substantially voting over to themselves, 
 at their own price, the products of the seller. 
 
 If we ever have a scientific analysis of the causes which have led to 
 the formation of the trusts in the United States, it will surely be 
 found that one of the main causes is the seemingly harmless system 
 which places the few large buyers in direct contact with the pro- 
 ducers by bringing them to the farm to purchase the product where 
 it is grown. This system enables these few buyers to surround the 
 many sellers and hem them in completely, thus using them as a 
 property peculiarly their own, to have and to hold and to keep. 
 
 And now to go back to the tobacco situation. We see, in the first 
 place, some half-dozen "regie" buyers and a few home trust buyers 
 surrounding the growers in the producing district as a solid unit, the 
 unit of the monopolist buyer, dictating the price, terms, and condi- 
 
MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 33 
 
 tions. The price, terms, and conditions for what? For the product 
 of the southern tobacco planter; for American tobacco. And what 
 is this product that is thus being foot-balled in a one-sided game by 
 a few buyers ? What, then, is this American tobacco ? 
 
 From the point of view of commerce American tobacco is at once 
 a staple, a luxury, and a necessity. It is a product in constant 
 demand all over the world; a product almost exclusively produced 
 within the boundaries of the Southern States. In other words, the 
 crop raised by the American tobacco planter is, substantially, a 
 monopoly. Do the American tobacco growers realize this ? 
 
 Is there any reason why half a dozen monopoly buyers should sur- 
 round the tobacco-growing district, dictating their prices, terms, and 
 conditions for this product, when the southern tobacco planters 
 may have the markets of the whole world opened to them ? 
 
 Is there not a way whereby these planters may break through 
 the cordon of monopolistic buyers who now surround them and reach 
 out to the large body of ultimate purchasers ? There surely is a way, 
 for as his tobacco is at once a staple, a luxury, and a necessity, in 
 constant demand all over the world, it becomes practicable for the 
 planter to build up a series of selling zones for the marketing of his 
 product. Beginning with the first of these outward zones, which 
 should be some distance removed from the producing district, let the 
 planter designate selling centers within that zone, and determine the 
 quantity of tobacco to be offered hi each center. Then, extending 
 outward, let him establish another selling zone, and so on, until the 
 entire Union is thus covered. 
 
 And right here it would seem to me that the American farmer 
 would do well to cease from shouting at the "pit" and "exchange." 
 The question is, do not these "pits" and "exchanges" deserve to be 
 studied seriously by him? Is it not high time that there be a little 
 solid thinking on what they mean and on what function they perform 
 in the equities of exchange ? 
 
 That abuses sometimes creep into the "wheat pits" and "cotton 
 exchanges" may be freely admitted, but abuses sometimes creep even 
 into church. Shall we for that reason abolish the church ? Upon a 
 right understanding it will be seen that in place of crying down the 
 "pits" and "exchanges," they should in reality be multiplied until 
 every fan-sized town in the Union has its "pit," its "exchange" — 
 and above all, mind you, a "pit," an "exchange," which should be 
 run by the American farmers themselves through their cooperative 
 unions. These "pits" and "exchanges" should not alone cover a 
 series of zones embracing the entire United States, but the producers, 
 through their cooperative unions, should also operate branches in the 
 principal market centers in foreign countries. This, then, would be 
 the effective way of placing the farm, the factory, and the consumer 
 in direct contact, and without the intervention of trust or monopolist. 
 
 And here we may expect the "regie" buyers to step in with the 
 remark: "You seem to overlook the fact that each of the countries 
 having a Government tobacco monopoly has but one buyer. Of what 
 use, then, would the multiplication of the proposed selling zones be 
 to you, since the American tobacco grower could not directly nor 
 indirectly land a single pound of his tobacco in a tobacco monopoly 
 country unless it be bought by this one Government buyer? And 
 S. Doc. 579, 63-2 3 
 
34 MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 if you should hamper this buyer by attempting to dictate to him 
 just what he should do, how he should buy, would you not thereby 
 interfere with his buying? What then would you do with the 
 consequent surplus of tobacco on your hands? Would not this 
 increased surplus tend to reduce the growers' price still lower than 
 what it is now?" 
 
 To which we may reply as follows: By placing his tobacco for 
 sale in the open market in the various selling zones, as above indicated, 
 the planter would by no means hinder the free and equitable distri- 
 bution of this product. Nor need there be any fear on the part of 
 the planter of airy congestion of the tobacco in these zones, because 
 the necessity the buyers are .under of having the tobacco is sufficient 
 spur to make them buy. Take it in the case of the " regie." While 
 it is true that the American grower is not permitted to export his 
 tobacco direct to a Government tobacco monopoly country, it is also 
 true that this tobacco must be had by the Governments in question. 
 And the "must" is imperative for the following reasons: 
 
 First. Because the tobacco monopoly forms an important part of 
 the fiscal system of these Governments, and any decrease or cessa- 
 tion in the purchase of the tobacco would seriously interfere with their 
 fiscal policy; 
 
 Second. These Governments employ a large number of people in 
 the manufacture of this tobacco whom it would be quite inconvenient 
 and irksome to dismiss on account of any shortage in the supply; 
 
 Third. There is the large body of selling agents, the retail tobacco 
 dealers, throughout the countries who would be seriously hampered 
 and injured by any decrease in their supplies; and 
 
 Fourth. There is the constant and imperative demand for these 
 tobaccos by the people. 
 
 All who use tobacco, whether peasants, laborers, mechanics, pro- 
 fessional men, or men of leisure, expect to find the supplies they are 
 accustomed to in the Government agency shops, which are the only 
 ones permitted to sell tobacco in the monopoly countries. Let them 
 go there and be told that there are no supplies and no substitutes, 
 and there will be currents and eddies of protest which would pres- 
 ently become deep and loud and ominous. Weigh it, measure it, 
 analyze it, and there can be but one conclusion with regard to the 
 situation. It is not the buyer who, in reality, has the monopolistic 
 advantage. It is the seller who, in fact, has a monopoly. For, in 
 this instance, the seller has a product which all the world wants 
 and wants almost all the time, and which can not be got elsewhere. 
 He has a product which the "regie " must get in order to be a "regie." 
 It is only a question as to how and when and where the selling is 
 done. 
 
 Once make it necessary for the "regie" buyer to run around from 
 State to State, from market to market, for his tobacco, once make it 
 necessary for him to purchase a little here and a little there, and a 
 little everywhere, and he will no longer be able to buy American 
 tobacco below the cost of production. He will then have to pay the 
 equitable market rate, in full accord with the law of supply and 
 demand. 
 
 And now the question arises: How may the American tobacco 
 grower set in motion the machinery required for a change in his 
 marketing system along the lines of the proposed outward selling 
 
MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS. 35 
 
 zones, with "pits" and "exchanges" which should embrace all the 
 important trading centers within the domain of the United States ? 
 Is there a way to do this ? 
 
 I believe there is. Let the American tobacco-growers' organization 
 join hands with the other agricultural organizations in the United 
 States for the appointment of a national committee. Let this com- 
 mittee, in conjunction with the United States Department of Agri- 
 culture, make a careful and intelligent study of the German Land- 
 wirtschaftsrat system, with a view to its adaptation and adoption in the 
 United States. This would give the American farmer what the 
 farmers of Germany have — a national council of agriculture, semi- 
 official in character, with power of initiative on economic lines. 
 When once this national council of agriculture, this American adapta- 
 tion of the landwirtschaftsrat, would be established, it would afford 
 a basis for economic development. It would, in the first place, 
 afford the American farmer an opportunity to evo^e a system of 
 rural credit suited to his needs, a system like that of the German 
 landschaft (see pp. 351-361 and 381-389 of S. Doc. No. 214), which 
 could be made to provide him with money on long-time mortgages at 
 approximately the same rate of interest paid on Government bonds. 
 Through this national council the farmer would be able to ward off 
 any mere bankers' schemes of rural credit, such as those now pending 
 in Congress and in State legislatures. The farmers would then learn 
 that they can get money without going anywhere near bankers and 
 without themselves becoming bankers; that they can get it the same 
 as the farmer does in Germany under the landschaft system. Witd 
 this money the American farmers need no longer be subject to the 
 trust; they could then become the great American trust themselves, 
 just as the German farmers are hi Germany and the Danish farmers in 
 Denmark. With this money the farmers could then open their own 
 "pits" and "exchanges" in the various parts of the United States. 
 In fact under the proposed national council of agriculture the farmers 
 of America would have three temples. The first would be their 
 church, the second would be their cooperative union hall, and the 
 third would be their "pit," their "exchange." 
 
 In these "pits" and ''exchanges," run by the farmers' cooperative 
 unions under the auspices of the national council of agriculture, all 
 the different kinds of farm produce could be put on sale at different 
 hours in the day or week. There would be a time for the sale of 
 potatoes and other root crops; a time for that of fruits; a time for 
 tobaccos; a time for cereals; a time for cotton, wool, flax, and hides; 
 a time for dairy products and forage; a time for live stock and 
 poultry. Thus every hour in the day these "pits" and "exchanges" 
 would be to the agricultural interests of America what the heart is to 
 the human body. 
 
 And now, finally, it should be understood that the tobacco question 
 is not an isolated case; that the complaint of the tobacco planter is 
 the complaint of the American farmer; that he is the "under dog" 
 lying prostrate under the heel of the trust. 
 
 The European farmer has succeeded in kicking this trust aside 
 once and for all, as the American farmer can see if he will but patiently 
 read through the important features hi the 916-page book of evidence 
 gathered by the American commission and printed by Congress (S. 
 Doc. No. 214) . And here let it be said that whatever opinion may be 
 
36 
 
 MARKETING OP FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 entertained as to the value of the commission, this should not be 
 allowed to bias judgment as to the value of this book, which, it 
 should be remembered, consists in the main of statements by authori- 
 tative experts given under Government auspices in the countries 
 visited. 
 
 A careful reading of this book will show the American farmer that 
 he has come to the parting of the ways; that he must either remain 
 where he is and be eaten up by the trusts, or go ahead on progressive 
 economic lines as the European farmer has done, and by pushing 
 aside the buying trusts take his rightful place as the selling trusts 
 for the distribution of his own products. 
 
 The difficulties the American tobacco planter labors under are 
 substantially the difficulties inherent to the lack of organization for 
 ec momic purposes of the American farmers generally. The American 
 farmer has yet to learn that he is living in an age of industrial coop- 
 eration, a lesson which has been learned and applied by labor, by 
 commerce, by finance; a lesson which has especially been mastered 
 by the farmers of Europe. Like the ostrich, the American farmer 
 hides his face from the light and says there is no cooperation. It is 
 high time that he gathered himself together; it is high time that he 
 realizes that it is just as futile for him to remain outside the influences 
 which govern his age as it would be for him to vote himself outside of 
 the influences of the law of gravitation. 
 
 The remedy that will apply to the American tobacco planters' dif- 
 ficulties will apply substantially to the American farmers as a whcle. 
 This remedy consists, first of all, in the adaptation and adoption of 
 the German Landwirtschaftsrat in the United States in the establish- 
 ment of a national council of agriculture. Let the American tobacco 
 planter work for the national council of agriculture, and, when once 
 this is established, the other ossentials will necessarily follow in due 
 course. This and this only will free American agriculture once and 
 for all from its servitude to the now omnipotent buying trusts. 
 
 David Lubin, 
 Delegate of the United States, 
 International Institute of Agriculture, Rome, Italy. 
 
 March 27, 1914. 
 
 o 
 
0002780503^