profit of at least 1 cent a bushel. These cars bought from the Equity Cooperative Exchange by members of the chamber of commerce were placed upon the tables in the exchange room of the chamber of commerce and sold on the same day at an advance of at least 1 cent a bushel, or, in other words, the shipper paid what amounted to at least two commissions upon the 70 per cent of the cars sold to the Equity Exchange.

Instances can be given where profits much greater than 1 cent per bushel have been made on grain bought from the Equity Cooperative Exchange, and sold immediately on the floor of the chamber of commerce. I wish to call your attention to the record of the following shipment:

"The Farmers' Elevator Co., of Breckenridge, Minn., shipped car 25751 N. P. to the Equity Cooperative Exchange, Minneapolis, on November 6, 1912, and made draft on the Equity Cooperative Exchange for $800. On November 9, 1912, the Equity Cooperative Exchange paid the draft of the Farmers' Elevator Co. of Breckenridge, and on the same day billed for an advance on the Big Diamond Milling Co., to whom they sold the car, to go to their mill at Morristown, Minn., for $800 advance. The car was not unloaded at Morristown until 30 days later, but when the Equity Cooperative Exchange made up its account sales to the Farmers' Elevator Co. at Breckenridge they charged the Farmers' Elevator Co., at Breckenridge, $4.66 interest, although at no time were they out any money for any advance made to the Farmers' Elevator Co. at Breckenridge."

The claim that the company is now cooperative, and the claim that the shipper will receive dividends which will amount to a rebate of a portion of the commission, seems quite amusing, in view of the plan as set forth in a letter of D. C. Henderson, on page 5 of your August 16 issue. The plan provides that out of the commission earned all of the salaries of officers and employees will first be paid, also necessary expenses for rent, stationery, advertising, etc. Second, stockholders will receive 8 per cent dividend out of any balance that may remain. Third, out of any further balance which may remain after this 8 per cent dividend is paid, a fund will be set aside for depreciation of property values; second, a reserve fund not to exceed 20 per cent of the total net profits, and third, an educational and development fund not less than 5 per cent nor more than 20 per cent of the total net profits. If there are any other profits still remaining they are to be divided among the patrons as a patronage dividend in proportion to the quantity and value of the patronage given. Even if the grain consigned to the Equity Exchange were sold for as high prices as would be the case in the exchange room of recognized grain exchanges, a simple perusal of this plan should point out to any patron the chance he had of securing a patronage dividend.

In other words, if this institution has falsely advertised itself for more than a year as a cooperative institution, and has made use of false pictures in advertisements regarding a terminal elevator, claimed to be owned by them, and which enabled them to store the shippers' grain, and if the facts set forth in the affidavit of Mr. James DeVeau are true regarding the manner in which the shippers' grain was received at Duluth, it would seem strange if a publication such as yours would give its approval and recommendation to this organization, regardless of its past history.

I am at a loss to know what reason you have for believing that the future operation and management of this organization would differ from its record in the past.

Yours, very respectfully,

E. J. GROVER.

How many of the stockholders of Equity Cooperative Exchange are well satisfied with their investment? We would like to know. If you are not satisfied with your returns nor the outlook of the business, write us and tell us the amount of your stock and when paid in. We have some names; how about yours? If you are satisfied, write us so we can find out.

LET THE FARMER FOOT THE BILL.

This seems to be a favorite idea with many business concerns who find it necessary to eke out their income by adding to the expenses of their customers an extra toll in more or less secret ways. These concerns have all their pet methods for doubling the toll so as to collect the money without the farmer knowing it. The Equity Exchange certainly has one of the nicest little schemes of their own to collect a little extra toll that has appeared lately. We refer to selling the grain shipped to them to other concerns in such a way that the other concern quotes the price 1 cent below the market price, thus enabling the exchange to send the farmer a report of the sale showing the selling price and their own 1 cent of commission subtracted and making him believe that the price quoted was the market price at the time. The other concern had their cent commission and often a nice profit over that. If the exchange had not

been unfortunate enough to stir up that investigation last winter they might have gone on for a long time and the farmers would have been no wiser, but the investigation happened to throw the light upon some rather shady practices of the concern. This has been rather troublesome as before it was so fine to make the farmer pay his two commissions and then have him write a letter to the exchange telling how well satisfied he was with the treatment. That ought to be satisfactory to everyone if it was satisfactory to the one fleeced, was evidently the reasoning of the Equity Exchange However, the public prefers to have things done right, even if some of the victims are willing and satisfied to be victimized. Public opinion is a strong thing even for the Equity Exchange to oppose, and so they are making frantic appeals to clear themselves of the charge of wrongdoing, and try to make people believe that they are no doing it now. The list of cars sold to two commission firms during one month from October 13 to November 13, 1913, will speak for itself in regard to that question. Count the number of cars sold to these two firms in every case with the reported price at least a cent below the market price and try to figure out where the profit to the farmer comes in on this deal. Of course he has the satisfaction of selling his grain to an "independent" exchange and that ought to be worth a sacrifice of a cent or two per bushel. The only trouble is that this "independent" exchange is really more dependent than any of the dozens and scores of commission houses in the Twin Cities. Hardly any of these other commission houses need to peddle their grain around to others and sell it at several cents below the true market price in order to dispose of it. But what of that, as long as the farmer is willing to foot the bill the game goes on merrily and the farmer pays the fiddler.

J. H. Riheldaffer Co., a commission merchant, member of the chamber of commerce, reports the following list of cars purchased from the Equity Cooperative Exchange, through Nels Enge, their salesman; each of these cars having been handled in the form of a purchase, with at least 1 cent or the full commission deducted, resold almost without exception promptly thereafter in the exchange room of the chamber of commerce.

R. J. Johnstone, a licensed commission merchant, member of the chamber of commerce, furnishes a list of some of his purchases, every car having been purchased with the deduction of at least the full commission below the chamber of commerce market values at the time of the purchase. Both of these commission firms state that on every purchase made by them from the Equity Cooperative Exchange the full commission is deducted in making the purchase.

Other commission merchants, members of the chamber of commerce, report purchases under similar conditions:

Under the captivating title "A challenge to the chamber," Mr. Benjamin Drake, as attorney for the Equity Exchange, has an interesting epistle in the November 8 issue of Northwestern Agriculturist which is worthy of a lawyer and the firm represented in saying one thing and at the same time not saying it. The exchange feels very much hurt by the statements that it makes the consumer pay two commissions on the grain sold and so takes a spectacular way of showing that it does not do such wicked things. He sends the Agriculturist a check for $1,000 from the Equity Exchange in favor of the board of charities and requests that the chamber of commerce be invited to do likewise. Then if the chamber can prove that the exchange sold a single car on which it charged two commissions, the exchange check is to be turned over to the board of charities; if they can not, the chamber check is to be turned over to the board. Now this sounds very fair and open. No doubt the farmers will say, "Oh, the exchange must be all right, otherwise the chamber would have showed them a thing here if they could, but they dare not." A fine bluff! Notice the wording of the challenge. If the chamber can prove that it (the exchange) charged a double commission. No one has ever accused the exchange of charging two commissions. The farmer would not pay it if they did. But what has been charged is that the exchange arranges to have its sales to other commission houses reported in such a way that the sale from the exchange is reported at 1 cent below the market price. This conceals the double commission, but the commission has been made nevertheless and the exchange is cognizant of the fact that the price reported is below the market price at the time and the reason why the price is so reported is to enable the other commission firm to make their full commission. This is the rake-off to the commission firm from the exchange for selling the grain which the exchange is not able to sell because they have not the buyers. There is a great difference between buying a car of grain at a certain price and later selling it at a higher price as the price went up, and reporting a car sold at a cent less than

the price was at the time the car was sold in order to hide the extra commission. The second is double commission; the first is not whether the car is sold by the exchange or any other commission firm. So the challenge stands. It is a fine piece of grandstand play for the farmer. Wonder if the exchange will be able to fool very many farmers. If it does, how long are the farmers going to stay fooled?

66 WE ARE THE PEOPLE."

Certain individuals were busy during the Minnesota State Convention of the A. S. of E., railroading through a resolution censuring the National Grain Grower for its editorial stand. The reason given is that the National Grain Grower is working diametrically against the principles of equity and the American Society of Equity. To speak plainly, that was a lie and the ones that pushed it through knew it to be so. The Grain Grower is a believer in the principles of equity and will continue to work for them through thick and thin. But as we have said before we do not believe that one private company has any patent right on the principles of equity so that they can use them as a shield and an opportunity for private gain. This Equity Exchange says in fact: "We, the exchange is the American Society of Equity and beyond us there is no society, no principles of equity. The exchange is the one whom every one must worship and obey. When it sends forth its mandates, the others must hasten to bend the knee and worship the image of King." It seems queer that in this day we still have these remnants of the dark ages that one little clique can say to the rest: We are the people. If you are a supporter of equity you must do as we say. You must let us do your business for you. If you do business with anyone else you are a traitor, a thief, a scoundrel. Unless you cry Hosanna when we appear on the scene you are a partner with thieves and robbers and you have sold your birthright for the "flesh pots of Egypt. It used to be the common practice of the political demagogue to throw this kind of dust into the people's eyes and they very often succeed as well now. Farmers have begun to think a little for themselves and the "we are the people" talk does not take as well as it did. Farmers will say to the exchange: "If you claim to be the only ones who are honest in their dealings with the farmer, show us your faith by your works. True cooperation would seek to get as full value to the farmer for his grain as possible instead of trying to beat him out of a few cents by hidden commissions. It is well to be able to show by one's work the faith that is in one and not think that one can gain all by call, all who do not follow their whistle for thieves and traitors. Talk of that sort, the repertoire of a fishwife seems to be the main stock in trade of this concern, and they are indeed fortunate if they can make the farmer swallow it all. But the exchange will discover that the old trick of crying "stop thief" will not be enough to keep people from asking how its affairs stand.

The exchange got sore because we stated some time ago that we supposed the exchange knew what happened to the money paid in for stock, because we did not. We understand some $50,000 was subscribed and paid in to the exchange some time ago and the intention as reported was to build a terminal elevator. The exchange advertises that it has done business a little over a year. Where is the terminal elevator? Where is the $50,000? Financial statements are well enough, but some of our "Blue Sky" companies have had fine financial statements, but the farmer still has is certificate for blue sky and that is all. The money has been paid in. Where is the terminal elevator? Why did the exchange have to borrow $50,000 to finance them through the present year as reported? From which fund is the $2,000 guaranteed the "farmers paper" which the exchange established this fall to be taken? People are getting curious and would like to know.

THE SWITCHING GRAFT."

The "lieutenants" of the Equity Exchange have never failed to score the average switching charge and proclaiming to the people how they abolished the "switching charge.' In reality no switching charge has been abolished but the railroad and warehouse commission issued a ruling forbidding the "average" switching charge of $1.50 and leaving the switching to be assessed against each car, making the switching charge vary from $1 to $3, depending on the number of lines it had to be switched over. The only change is that the charge varies and whenever a car is sold the commission merchant must figure out how the car is to be switched in order to reach the buyer, as the buyer usually buys wheat "delivered" at his warehouse or mill. This makes necessary comparisons between these buyers' offers after switching charges are deducted and what other buyers on the road where the car is located would offer for the same. If the offer is the best he can do, he sells the grain delivered and deducts the switching charges whether they be $1, $2 or $3. The net result is practically the same. On some

cars it will be nothing or little, on other cars, perhaps $2 or $3. The farmer is no better off than before.

Yet the Equity Exchange hollers about abolishing the switching charges and then resorts to some rather questionable tactics to conceal from its customers the switching charge which is always imposed whenever the car is switched to some other line. Why the exchange does not want the truth told to the shipper is beyond our ken, but it may be that if the farmers knew the truth they would not think so much of the 'charitable" and "cooperative" business tactics of Anderson, Loftus & Co. It is hard to shout so loud for this bunch of "reformers" when the farmers know how the conditions of the grain business are "reformed" for the benefit of the Equity "Cooperative" Exchange.

The following is an example of how these "reformers" endeavor to make farmers believe that there is no switching charge and it shows how it "benefits" the farmers or the farmers' elevator. Why not do business on the square? This is how it is done: On Friday, December 5, 1913, Mr. Nels Enge, salesman for the Equity Cooperative Exchange, called at the office of Mr. Riheldaffer, a licensed commission merchant, and member of the Chamber of Commerce of Minneapolis, and offered a car of No. 2 northern wheat which had been consigned to the Equity Cooperative Exchange.

Mr. Riheldaffer stated, "The market (meaning the chamber of commerce market) for this class of wheat is 84 cents, so I can give you 83 cents 'delivered,' with the chamber of commerce commission of 1 cent commission per bushel deducted."

Mr. Enge stated that Mr. Loftus would not permit him to sell grain "delivered," as he did not desire any switching charge to show upon the account sales to the shipper. Mr. Riheldaffer said, "Very well, then I shall make my bid 82 cents, taking off one-half cent on account of switching charge necessary to deliver this grain to the buyer's industry.'

Mr. Enge accepted this bid of 82 cents and Mr. Riheldaffer promptly thereafter sold the wheat for 84 cents, making the regular commission of 1 cent per bushel and in addition, receiving an allowance of one-half cent per bushel on account of switching charge, which would amount to between $5 and $6; whereas the maximum switching charge which Mr. Riheldaffer would have to pay would be $3. In other words, nearly twice the maximum switch was allowed to Mr. Riheldaffer in a deduction of one-half cent from the price, in order that the shipper should be deceived into thinking that he paid no switching charge. And in addition, the full chamber of commerce commission of 1 cent per bushel was deducted from the price. Mr. Farmer, you didn't pay any switching charge on that car, remember, and only one commission. Anderson, Loftus et al. abolished the switching charge, you remember, and sell your grain direct to the consumer thus saving you the extra commissions which other firms would charge you. How do you like it? The "reforms" are fine, are they not?

BOOKKEEPING FOR THE FARMERS' ELEVATORS.

One of the shrewdest ways of controlling the business of an elevator and leaving the owners of the elevator in absolute ignorance of what goes on was brought to our notice recently by a letter written by the secretary of a farmers' elevator asking for information concerning one of the cars in the list published last month. He stated that the books were kept by the Equity Exchange and in their report to them the purchaser of the car was not mentioned and he had no way of getting at the facts as the books were kept by the exchange. Indeed a fine arrangement. But why not demand that the exchange give you a full accounting? According to the law you are entitled to a full and complete record of the business. Find out how your business is being cared for. It ought not hurt anybody to know or tell the truth.

TRACE YOUR CARS.

We have been requested to publish some more lists of cars sold by the Equity Exchange to chamber of commerce firms with full commission deducted from the selling price. Ordinarily we care very little where the exchange sells its grain, but when it tries to hoodwink its patrons in such a flagrant manner it is time to investigate and find out what is done to your cars. It seems to be the custom of the exchange to report the cars sold at a certain price without telling to whom it was sold. Why should the Equity Exchange not be willing to report to whom the cars were sold? Is it because they are afraid that the farmers will try to find out what was done with the car? According to the sales manager of the Equity Exchange all the chamber of commerce people are thieves and robbers. What about the exchange if they deal mainly through them and make use of their help to hoodwink the farmer? We care little where the