THE HOLDING MOVEMENT IN AGRICULTURE 271 
the twelve-year period, 1910 to 1921, reveals no such condition. 
The average farm price for wool for the quarter ending July 
31st is given by the Department of Agriculture at twenty-nine 
and one-half cents per pound. For the quarter ending December 
31st the average price was twenty-seven and eight-tenths cents 
per pound and for the quarter ending April 31st, almost a year 
after shearing, the average price was thirty cents per pound. 
If the farmer had sold in July, when his wool was ready, he 
would have received twenty-nine cents a pound. If he had held 
for the very highest seasonal price, that of the following March 
he would have received thirty and six-tenths cents per pound. 
The difference, one and six-tenths cents a pound, minus the cost 
of carrying, represents his gain. 
The quarterly prices for scoured territory wool, Boston, cover- 
ing the same period, are quite as convincing. The average price 
for the quarter ending July 31st was $1.02 per pound; for the 
quarter ending December 31st, $1.00 6/10 per pound and for the 
quarter ending April 31st, $1.00 3/10 per pound. (Year Book, 
Department of Agriculture, 1921, p. 720.) 
Statistics covering the four years from 1922 to 1926 show sub- 
stantially the same results. In every year but one, if shrinkage 
and carrying charges be taken into account those farmers who 
did not sell their wool immediately after shearing suffered severe 
losses. (Year Book, Dept. of Agriculture, 1925, p. 1173. Crops 
and Markets, Jan. 1927, p. 32.) 
The study of price movement for other agricultural products 
not traded in on the exchanges show results paralleling those for 
wool. The conclusion is, therefore, inevitable that the normal 
working of the law of supply and demand in the highly developed 
market of today brings about such an adjustment of prices that 
the withholding of crops from the market for higher seasonal 
prices does not usually result in gain to the holding farmer but 
may involve him in speculative losses. He is fortunate indeed if 
his delayed marketing compensates him for his carrying charges. 
This significant fact is not openly admitted by the advocates of 
the Holding Movement but the entire trend of recent attempts 
at legislation for farm relief speaks eloquently of its tacit accept- 
ance by them. For the past three years they have placed 
emphasis not upon the advantages of later seasonal prices but 
upon the possibility of raising prices through the creation of a