the minds of its patrons. They must, like the Grain Growers' Grain Company and the Russian Centrosyus, educate their members through the medium of their affiliated organizations to appreciate and value correctly those established methods of business and business establishments which their marketing agency makes use of. Thus their activities must be above board and fair and their members must be taught the whole truth of the function of a marketing agency in order that an enlightened and reasoning membership unembittered by the half-truths of prejudice and jealousy may move on to the construction of a better and more efficient machine. This, it seems, can be done and has already been done in those districts where farming has been made an industry.

The value of such an organ, it seems, is not in its ability to reduce handling costs considerably. A difference of even five cents a bushel for wheat-and this would be a large increase would not amount to much to the farmer whose average annual production of that commodity is but twelve hundred and fifty bushels. Should the cooperative be able to accomplish such a feat-and it seems that it cannot-what will be the benefit of such an organization? 18 It seems that that benefit will be an ethical rather than an economic one.

It is not possible to doubt that the cooperative will attempt to justify itself economically with its patrons. We can even go further and maintain that the membership will be persuaded that theirs is an economic gain. We should bear in mind however, the origin of the Agrarian Movement; we should not lose sight of the fact that the problem, though it centered around the marketing of produce, arose because of the distrust of the farmer for his agent both at country points and at the terminal; we should not overlook the fact that, although at times this distrust of the producers was founded upon fact, yet the ease with which one could engage in the grain trade and the resulting intense competition has so lowered the margin of profit that it does not seem that any appreciable re

18 See the Report of the Federal Trade Commission on the Grain Trade, Summary.

duction in handling costs can be reasonably expected. The great gain, if there is to be a gain, must therefore be an ethical one and must come from the elimination of that discontent that has sprung from the suspicion that another is gaining at the farmer's expense. The movement, it seems fair to predict, has, because of the changing methods of the farmer, a reasonable chance to eliminate that discontent that has been the butt of all political activity in the Western States since the Civil War. Such a movement, it seems, will be able to restore that equilibrium in the affairs of the Nation which was destroyed by specialization and consolidation in the manufacturing industries, and which the Agrarians so often attempted to restore by statute and enlarged governmental activity. Thus this change in the methods of farming seems to mark the close of a period of expansion on the part of Government activities and the beginning of a period in which the Government will be gradually relegated to its true function of arbiter and protector in private rights.

Where the cooperative controls the market there is no need for state inspection and regulation. The buyer and seller can again meet on equal footing and bid in on lots as they see them. We will have again a system of personal marketing, once so dear to the agriculturist, but with the difference that the agriculturist has become a specialist in production and leaves to a salaried representative, whom he both controls and trusts, the duty of obtaining for him a fair market price. This, it seems, will eliminate the Government from that sphere of activity in industrial relations for which the politician has no training.

That there should be opposition to this movement is of course natural. In fact the movement would be despaired of, had there been little or no evidence of hostility. To-day the middlemen are still strong, and, possessed of ample resources but enlightened producers, organized intelligently, and testing their organization by the strength of the opposing forces, they will find their association thus tried in a most bitter strife, better tempered and far stronger. Opposition, in a demo

cracy, does not destroy a legitimate movement, but fits it for better service for the period in which it will be of use. This has continually been the case in the Agrarian Movement. The local cooperative elevator movement was born to a most bitter struggle, but to-day those associations control over fifty per cent of the country grain trade. The opposition in its success in destroying the Non-Partisan League has performed an inestimable service in that it has demonstrated that state activity is not practical. Had the plan been feasible the movement could not have been destroyed. So the obstacles placed in the way of cooperative marketing are a boon to the cause in that if cooperation triumphs, it is strengthened proportionately, if it fails, the futility of the movement is demonstrated.

One feature of the movement that deserves consideration and which seems to point to its eventual success is the source of its leaders. In all the successful cooperatives these men. have come from the sales forces centered at the terminals. A large number of them have first gone down to failure in private enterprise, yet profiting by their failures, they have sought to regain their former position through the aid furnished by such a movement. The agrarian discontent has always been connected in some way with the interplay of competitive forces at the terminals which have in times of scarcity changed their field of operation from the central markets to the tributary territory.1

14

Thus the Agrarian Movement, which came into existence through a division of labor first applied to industry, is disappearing through the industrialization of agriculture. Thus agriculture, in passing through those three phases which, as we first pointed out, other industries have passed through, will adapt itself to conditions as they are; its members, thus protecting the institution of private property and its system of

14 The origin of these several agitations seem to coincide with the rain cycles and crop yields in North Dakota. They thus appear in 1887, 1895, 1903, 1911, and 1920, see Plate V: H. L. Moore, "Forcasting the Crops of the Dakotas," in Political Science Quarterly, vol. xxxv, No. 2, June 1920, Fig. 4, p. 222.

reward for individual industry, will no longer look upon the Government as an agency with which to curb other forms of industry and thus bring back the "good old days," but will, by the application of industrial methods, so long despised and ignored, seek to work out its destiny along industrial lines.