no relief or which were contrary to the general interest of the country it was a mistake of intelligence of the purpose of those who had gained their confidence. That there is a crying need for some remedy to bring about fair conditions of agriculture can be seen by anyone almost any day in any market where farm products are offered for sale. I noticed, for instance, recently strawberries at three boxes for 25 cents. This is merely illustrative of the conditions which exist everywhere in many products. When one considers the toil, the investment, the annual care, the building of dwelling houses, the purchase of land, the gathering of equipment, the repeated cultivation of the soil, the time required to produce a crop which is in effect a year, the cost of containers, of transportation, of picking-such a price to the ultimate consumer, which perhaps meant not more than one-half that amount to the farmer himself, is not only an injustice to the farmer but a discredit to the whole community, should the community or the Nation as a whole fail to take any reasonable measure available to relieve such conditions. This particular price I refer to was spoken of in the market report as an "attractive" price. It was a cheap price for the purchaser, but as a matter of fact it was not an attractive price for anyone who reflects for a moment on the labor of those who produce this commodity for the benefit of the community and who has an inherent sense to see justice done. Thousands of instances in all parts of the country might be named. Thirty-five million of our people are affected directly by these conditions. A reasonable price for the farmer, the increase of his purchasing power, the stimulus that this will give to business in general need not to any great extent increase the price to the consumer. The difference between a niggardly and what I think of as an indecent price and a reasonable price should be made up along the line of the various exchanges which take place between the actual producer of the product and the ultimate consumer. This, however, is a detail for further discussion at another time, as are other provisions of the proposed measure, which in its present form is merely tentative. I welcome the exposure of these criticism and discussion. It contains some original applications of wellknown policies. I believe discussion of this will tend toward the perfection of a measure on this basis. In the main, I believe it to be sound. I myself am aware of objections which can be made to it. I believe, however, that most if not all of these objections can be satisfactorily answered. Space forbids me at this time discussing the details. Some of the advantages of the measure as compared with others which have been proposed are that it does not put the Government into business; it does not create a complicated Government bureau; it does not impose upon the farmer nor upon the farmer's products a burdensome tax for the creation of a fund to be used for their supposed relief in an untried scheme for governmental dealing in surplus crops. On the other hand, it leaves the application of the effective remedies provided by the act and based upon the commonest functions of the Government in accord with established policies of our economic laws, to the operation of the farmers themselves. As in all new measures, we will learn by experience in its operation. A begin ning must be made somewhere. If difficulties are developed, remedies for them must be found. It is the only way in which we can succeed. Objection, of course, will be raised to vesting in the organized farmers power to fix prices on such a vital necessity as food. In answer it may be said, first, that as to the principal products such as wheat and livestock, they are not food in the form as produced by the farmer and stock grower, and the fixing of a reasonable price is limited in this measure to the original product of the land. People do not eat wheat, nor even flour, but bread produced from them. They do not eat live animals, but meat prepared from them in the slaughter houses. As to these food products, bread and meat long since passed from the hands of the farmer, and it may be said that the price is already fixed by the bakers and meat packers. So that the dread expressed of the fixing of prices on food has already been realized not only in these but hundreds of other instances in these days of canned goods, breakfast foods, "57 varieties," refined sugar, etc. In fact this is the very reason why it is desirable to permit the farmer to fix a reasonable price on the raw materials which he produces. It is the very existence of this unequal condition which creates the so-called farm problem. In the second place, many of the important crops such as cotton, are not food. It is true that cotton is material for clothing. But in this case also the raw cotton is not clothing; and after it has been manufactured into cloth and further processed into clothes, the prices on the same are fixed by combinations of manufacturers. A natural regulator of this price, to some extent, is the fact that if it is fixed too high, people will use subst tutes for cotton, or buy only in limited quantities. The same natural factor will prevent the farmer from fixing prices unreasonably high on other farm products. MILES POINDEXTER, ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 1926 22 [TRANSMITTED PURSUANT TO LAW] UNITED STATES WASHINGTON SUBMITTED BY MR. CAPPER IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, Ordered, That the annual reports of the following-named public utility companies in the District of Columbia, for the year ending December 31, 1926, heretofore transmitted to the Senate, be printed as a Senate document: Capital Traction Co., Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., Georgetown Barge, Dock, Elevator & Railway Co., Potomac Electric Power Co., Washington Gas Light Co., Georgetown Gas Light Co., Washington Railway & Electric Co., City & Suburban Railway of Washington, Georgetown & Tennallytown Railway Co., and Washington Interurban Railroad Co. Attest: EDWIN P. THAYER, Secretary. II |