REPLIES TO CARD AND SCHEDULE INQUIRIES. 351
A milling concern producing more than $25,000,000 worth of flour
annually, much of which is exported, opposed cooperation in its line
on the ground that it would increase the selling cost:

United States flour has sold in the markets of the world for many years
on a highly competitive basis and at the lowest possible selling price. No
combination of United States millers can raise the price over the price of
flour in export markets. Any cooperative selling agency would increase the
cost of selling goods abroad, which is now very slight.
COMBINATION ADVANTAGEOUS.

On the other hand, another milling company, with annual sales
between $1,000,000 and $5.000,000, spoke for cooperation as follows:

Decidedly advantageous. A cooperative selling agency would prevent the
various competing United States mills from entering into a cutthroat competition
 which would eliminate practically all legitimate profit for the advantage
of the foreign buyer. In local district selling in the United States a mill has
a certain local trade in which it usually has some advantage over mills in other
parts of the United States—in transportation rates, in local favorable prejudice,
In trade-marks, ete. On the other hand, in competing for foreign business,
practically all mills of the United States are on nearly an equal basis. This
gives the foreigner a much greater opportunity to play one American mill
ngainst another. By this means he draws the manufactured product out of
the country without paying the legitimate profit and interest to which operators
are entitled.
The Manufacturing Chemists’ Association of the United States,
though strongly urging the advisability of freedom to experiment
with export combinations, made the following statement regarding
its uncertainty as to the advantage or disadvantage such combinations
 might prove to have:
It would depend upon the question of whether this method of conducting business
 is an efficient and economic method and this question the association
believes can not be answered until there has been a more universal experience.
Many of the association’s members advance strong arguments in favor of
such cooperative organizations, believing that they would (a) tend to open up
the export trade to the smaller manufacturers, (b) reduce selling costs by
eliminating useless duplication of expense, (¢) open up new foreign markets by
utilizing the combined strength of American producers and eliminating wasteful
competition, and (d) place American producers on equal terms with foreign
competitors who are not subject to such restrictive antitrust laws,
As shown in the table above, however, the great majority of the
replies received were favorable to some plan of combination or cooperation.
 Many gave no reason for their answer, simply answering
the question in the affirmative. Others thought such cooperation
would be to their advantage in that the selling cost would be reduced,
foreign competition would be overcome more easily because prices
would be more stable, a basis for extending credit could be determined
and established, and small manufacturers who individually are not
able to bear the expense of introducing their products in foreign
markets would thus be enabled to engage in foreign trade.
The following reply of a lumber manufacturer is illustrative:
An advantage. Avoids duplication of effort and consequent increase of sale
cost.
A salmon canner who exports more than one-third of his product
replied :
It would be a very great advantage because it would lessen the selling expense
 by several exporters combining in one selling agency and thereby enable