AGRICULTURAL RELIEF

720

The farmers only stand in need of a simple act of Congress that will give them
authority to organize under Federal charters, control distribution of interstate
and foreign shipments of their commodities, stabilize prices. and establish a
practical, effective nation-wide marketing svstem.
I agree with Mr. Jardine that, “successful cooperation can not be built on the
extravagant assertions of professional promoters.” Neither can it be built on
the extravagant claims of politicians or under professional or political control.
It must be kept out of the hands of promoters or politicians, must be controlled
py the farmers themselves, operated bv them in their interest. That is the very
heart of my plan.
I entertain the highest opinion of Mr. Jardine. We are both striving to bring
about a better system of farm marketing. We may differ as to methods. 1
understand Mr. Jardine is favorable to Federal control, on which I strongly
disagree. Marketing products of any character is a business proposition and
should be operated by those who understand the business. Certainly no one
understands the farming business and its requirements as well as the farmers.
Therefore, if the marketing of farm products is taken from under the control of
the farmers, the marketing of farm products can not be made successful.
Having sincerely the same objects in view, Secretary Jardine and myself should
De able to find a common ground upon which we can work in harmony in seeking
a solution of this perplexing problem.
Thanking you, Mr. President, for your consideraticn of this matter,
Very sincerely vours,
B. F. YoAKUM.

Hon. Carvin CooLIDGE,
The White House,
Washington.

CoMMoDITY MARKETING UNDER FEDERAL CHARTERS

NEw York City, February 8, 1928.

ny

Hon. Carvin CooOLIDGE,
The White House, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. PrEsIDENT: Farmers and business men alike have watched and
noped for some substantial relief in the farming situation. No one, I feel sure,
realizes this more keenly than vourself or would more cordially welcome a pracsical
 solution, which would be welcomed, we may be confident, by the thinking
men of both parties.
Rafts of bills have been introduced, there have been miles of speeches. but no
zonstructive action. Why?
Economists and agricultural authorities, even farm organization leaders, earnest
and sincere as they are, have missed the main point. That is that the farmers are
not getting their share of what consumers pay for food products, and can not
zet it until we create a nation-wide marketing system that will control distribution
 and establish and maintain profitable prices. }
Agriculture can not prosper permanently until it is, so far as marketing and
financing are concerned, placed, on the same high level as manufacturing.
How can this be done? By placing farmers in a position where they can direct
the distribution of their products and stabilize prices, as other industries do, at
production cost plus a fair profit.
Dealers now fix prices to both farmers and consumers. The consumer has no
sontrol over what he pays or the farmer over what he sells. oo
This condition has continued so long that there are now in the United States
19,000,000 “‘food-dealer population’ as compared with 32,000,000 farm popuation—nearly
 two-thirds as many dealers and dependents as there are farm
‘amilies—an immense unproductive army, far larger than necessary, living off of
1norganized farmers. - .
For 17 standard food products the farmers receive only $7,500,000,000 while
:onsumers pay $22,500,000,000. All the rest—3815,000,000,000-—goes for disribution
 and marketing. Isn’t this a terrific price to pay for handling and selling
‘00d? Seven billion six hundred and fifty millions dollars would be a liberal
illowance for this service, including ample profits to distributors. (See Exhibit
A) ; a
f cers could get the $7,350,000,000 more than a fair charge which
oe prod it would nally double the farmers’ income. If they could
ret even half of it, agriculture would prosper