June 21. 1924 



hat part of the 



I party pledges 



tment of meas- 



ral interests of 



ility with other 



1 success." The 



than this, nei- 



Nothing short 



iculture. This 



been improved 



farmers them- 



ons '.;■.'.,':.:;.•, 

 when we read 

 r, without put- 

 , the establish- 

 :ation for eoop- 

 " Putting the 

 h phrase. The 

 se in terms of 

 ing of packing 

 is not a socialist 

 idual efficiency 

 vemment regu- 

 serves that the 

 B activities into 

 )U8ines8 as well 

 letermined that 

 ility and he will 

 jtivities even to 

 it into business 

 ver it is neces- 

 Itural equality. 

 BiU 



tiat this phrase- 

 igen bill. The 

 irty could have 

 o do so. What 

 iders in the fu- 

 will effectively 

 eJ It is perti- 

 ihraseology has 

 the Republican 

 unents used by 

 hese opponents 

 nd this phrase- 

 ral interests of 

 F the men who 

 re to use this 

 >position to any 

 tivities for the 

 equality. 



Jane 21, 1924 



Tli« niiiiob AfffaJhwJ AmocUIioii Haemr* 



- \r 



•ST 



>omt the Irtsli- 



tnowr Sar, I 

 '. W« started 

 pped a coapla 

 nd It vras two 

 r and took on 



by a atandlB* 

 ver aeca It in 



kaow..^-J. E. 



BPFIE 



late 



he Liars* Cor- 



■ old. I haTe 



i'ig Clnb tonr 



ra. Natarallr 



oricaalsatloBB 

 Bareaa la tkc 

 ra* aid. 



entry la tkc 



1 learned kovr 

 en he planted 

 a year old ke 

 >ta kad come. 

 la. ivklck wa« 

 iKVlm:. After , 

 Dt. becaaac tt - 

 vater tkat ke 

 ret oat of tke 

 ow ke kas a 

 ea tkc wkolc 



ekriona. He 



id drill dovrn 



larscat plant. 



■ianieter and 



and drUllnir 



wklek ended 



^ larveat vela 



r Dad kaa tke 



d he Is tvrlee 



pened, all tke 



he adjoining 



a ad now are 



Tker are all 



i R, Dorser* 



LE 



neberrr naed 

 kine In tkeae 

 Only troa- 

 ing about kla 

 •d of ke«rlnK 

 »aldn*t tkresk 

 ira farm In a 

 oa It. and ke 

 OO baabela of 

 ive It tbere 

 bundle. WcU 

 aehlae. forty 

 to It, vTonad 

 e of Podnnk- 

 a tbe lakabl- 

 Kk to par hia 

 rm bealdeav— 



If you doM% 



1 oat IH Kan- 



• lc«n after 



Dry 1 Am.** 



Cowles Analyzes McNary - Haugen Bill Defeat 



LAJL REPRESENTATIVE TELLS 

 INSIDE POUTICS AND DETAILS 

 FOR FARM BUREAU MEMBERS 



Cowie* Say* That All Farm OrganLwtioiu 



Represented Worked in Hannony and 



United Accord; No New Action 



Determined. 



The McNary-Haugen Bill — its consideration in 

 the House of Representatives of the United States, 

 Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, with brief 

 comment upon and tome analysis of the vote by 

 which the bill was defeated. 



BY R. A. COWLES. 



The purpose of this article is to properly inform ;■,-; 

 our people, farm folks generally, and all f riendi ;■ 

 who supported the bill "back home" as to its 

 progress in Congress during the session just closed, 

 its consideration in the House of Representatives, 

 its defeat, and some of the causes and forces con- 

 tributing thereto. 



At the outset it should be stated that the Bill 

 was drafted with the fullest expectation that the 

 administration would sponsor the measure to the 

 extent of supporting it; since the principles em- 

 bodied in the bill had been under favorable con- 

 sideration by the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. 

 Henry Wallace, for more than two years. Fur- 

 ther, that the flexible tariff provision embodied, 

 and those other provisions of the bill seeking to 

 render effective the protective tariff on agricultural 

 commodities of which surpluses over and above 

 domestic consumptive demands are normally pro- 

 duced, were entirely consistent with principles of 

 the protective tariff. It was also assumed with 

 pardonable presumption by the proponents of the 

 bill representing the central, west and northwest 

 states, having consistently supported the various 

 tariff bills from time to time, and particularly the 

 high schedules on manufactured goods appearing 

 in the present Pordney-McCumber Bill at the urg- 

 ent request of the New England states and the 

 East — that the McNary-Haugen bill, because of its 

 very nature and the present emergency existing in 

 agriculture, would have the general support of this 

 group of states. 



What actually happened f > . 



COMMITTEES FAVORED IT *•' 



The bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator 

 Charles L. McNary of Oregon and in the House 

 by Representative Gilbert N. Haugen of Iowa and 

 ordered printed and referred te the respective com- 

 mittees on Agriculture of the Senate and House, 

 and by those Committees considered with unusual ^ 

 care and deliberation. The biU was in due course 

 favorably reported to both houses of Congress. A 

 minority report was also filed within the limit of 

 time prescribed by the house rules. 



After the bill was reported by the House Com- 

 mittee on Agriculture, considerable time elapsed 

 before the proponents of the bill were able to secure 

 a rule from the Rules Committee under which the 

 bill might come before the House for consideration. 

 This fact and other contributing evidences led the 

 proponents of the bill to the belief that the admin- 

 istration did not favor the measure. 



ORGANIZED AGRICULTURE BEHIND IT 



So that you may know something about the 

 united support of organized agriculture behind the 

 McNary-Haugen bill, a statement formulated by its 

 representatives in Washington, after having consid- 

 ered the subject matter in two conseciitive meetings, 

 was addressed to individual members of the Con- 

 gress and released to the press Monday morning. 

 May 19, 1924, appearing in the newspapers of the 

 central and western states. Space does not permit 

 of a repetition of the statement here. It reaffirmed 

 the united support of agriculture to the measure 

 and to the principles embodied in it. It was signed 

 by the following organizations whose representa- 

 tives were on the ground in Washington at the 

 time: 



T. C. Atkeson. Washington Representatlre, Na- 

 tional Grange. 

 John G. Brown, President, National Live Stock 



Producers' Association. 

 Geo. 6. Coale, Knox County, Indiana, Bankers. 

 Thomas E. Cashman, President, American Here- 

 ford Breeders Association Director, Minnesota 

 Farm Bureau Federation. 

 S. H. Thompson, President, Illinois Agricultural 



Association. 

 R. A. Cowles, .Treasurer, Illinois Agricultural 



Association. 

 Carl Gunderson, Director, South jDakots Wheat 

 .. Growers Association. ' 



William Hirth, President, Missouri Farmers As- 

 sociation. 



C. W. Hunt, Secretary-Treasurer, Iowa Farm 

 Bureau Federation. m 



Geo. C. Jewett, (lenerai Manager, AmericacPl 

 AVbeat Growers Associated. 



Fred I. Marshall, Secretary, National Wool 

 Growers Association. 



John D. Miller, President, National Cooperative 

 Milk Producers Association. 



F. W. Murphy, St. Paul Association and North- 

 west Campaign Committee tor Promotion Mc- 

 Nary-Haugen Bill. 



J. F. Reed, Vice-president, Minnesota Farm Bu- 

 reau Federation. 



J. R. Riggs, Producers Commission Association 

 of Indianapolis, Indiana. 



C. G. SelTlg, President, Minnesota Export Com- 

 mission League. 



Gray Silver, Washington Representative, Ameri- 

 can Farm Bureau Federation. 



Wm. H. Settle, President Indiana Farm Bureau 

 Federation. 



Indiana Wheat Pool. 



Indiana Dairy and Produce Association. 



L. J. Tabor, Master, National Gran^. 



John Tromble, President Kansas Farmers Union. 



During the session there were present for vary- 

 ing periods of time some seventy-eight representa- 

 tives of farmer organizations working to secure 

 the enactment of this legislation. They met on 

 common ground and worked without exception in 

 harmony. The bill had the united support of prac- 

 tically all farm organizations interested in the pro- 

 duction and marketing of the commodities enum- 

 erated in the bill and was generally admitted and 

 recognized to have such support. 



ADMINISTRATIOK TURNS ITS BACK 



Nevertheless, so far as I am informed no volun- 

 tary effort at any time was made in behalf Qr in 

 the name of the administration to consider the bill 

 or any of its provisions in council with those pres- 

 ent representing farm folks and their organiza- 

 tions, and who presumably were informed at first 

 hand as to the agricultural situation in the United 

 SUtes. 



Under the rule secured for the consideration of 

 the bill in the House, it was debated for fifteen 

 hours. After concluding the debate, the bill was 

 "read under five minute rule," section by section 

 — during which, members of the House were per- 

 mitted to offer amendments, speaking for five min- 

 utes upon each amendment. The entire considera- 

 tion of the bill was hampered by persistent filibus- 

 ter and consumed in all much time, parceled out, as 

 other legislation on the calendar and appropriation 

 bills came up for consideration, and intervened. 

 Reading of the bill was finally concluded and all 

 unfriendly amendments offered were' either voted 

 down, withdrawn or ruled out on point of order 

 made. During both the debate and the reading of 

 the bill it gained strength and support and should 

 have passed in this session of Congress, nowJ>rought 

 to a close. 



The first real test of strength came when the 

 reading of the bill was concluded on Saturday 

 evening. May 31st — ^the oppone".ts forcing adjourn- 

 ment and defeating a vote on the bill at that time. 

 Representative Long^orth from Ohio, majority 

 leader in the House, having given notice earlier in 

 the day that at the conclusion of the reading of the 

 bill on that day, vote on the bill should go over 

 until Monday or Tuesday, such motion was offered 

 and prevailed. 



" -"■':' INDIVIDUAL SUPPORT ONLY 



The bill was sponsored by no political party in 

 Congress, and its only friends in Washington were 

 those members of Congress who recognized its real 

 merit and loyally supported it, as (Ud also Secre- 

 tary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace, so far as his 

 position in the cabinet permitted. 



The bill admittedly had sufficient individual 

 support so that the administration, had it seen 

 fit, might have secured its passage in the House 

 and final enactment into law, as a great piece of 

 constructive legislation for the immediate benefit 

 of the people of the whole United States. 



Its defeat cannot be justified upon any grounds 

 and can only mean a continuation of subsidy to 

 industry under prevailing Fordney-McCumber high 

 tariff schedules at the expense of agriculture. 



The representatives of the several farmers' or- 

 ganizations/ in Washington, by appointment at 

 their request, met Mr. Longworth, the Majority 

 leader in the House, and other administrative lead- 

 ers — the Steering Committee — and discussed possi- 

 ble compromises that might be made in the bill, as 

 to commodities, maximum duration of the life of 

 the corporation, and authorized capital ; so that the 

 administration might get behind such a bilL Noth- 



ing was accomplished, and no compromise of the 

 principles of the McNary-Haugen Bill were enter- 

 tained by its friends. 



BIG BUSINESS OPPOSES 



The National Chamber of Commerce,' headed by 

 Julius Barnes, the American Bankers Association, 

 "Widl Street," the Grain Exchanges and other 

 large business and financial interests speaking 

 through these organizations and their associated 

 and federated groups in the larger cities, covered 

 the Country, directly and through tlieir metropoli- 

 tan press, with propaganda against the bill — un- 

 ft>unded and unsupported by the provisions of the 

 measure. Let the whole countrj- know and realize 

 that an organized group of the great city financial 

 and business interests, solely in the selfish interest 

 of a relatively very small number of their people, 

 blocked the passage in Congress of our bill, in which 

 the well being and living of hundreds of thousands 

 of farm people was at stake. Surelj' there should be 

 no underestimation or misunderstanding of the sit- 

 uation now. The record is before j'ou. The vote by 

 which your bill was defeated — your anslj-sis mutt . 

 bring you to the same conclusion, all. 



On, the other hand, large numbers of our ' ' down 

 state" bankers, business and professional men and 

 others, and their organizations and the down state 

 press in Illinois, and in the mid-west. west. n<»rth 

 .and north-west sections supported the bill and 

 urged ita passage in Congress. Rural America 

 with its friends from those sections of the country, 

 in a united effort must carry the fight to a finidL 

 The fght must be carried to Congress. Relief must 

 come through corrective legislative enactment; be- 

 cause a great defect is apparent in our economic 

 structure, directly attributable to and growing out 

 of legislative enactments secured through the ef- 

 forts and in the behalf of Industrj' and Labor — 

 favoring these groups to the great disadvantage of 

 Agriculture. 



The Agricultural situation in this country is 

 fundamentally and immediately due to this defect 

 — whatever minor causes may be thought to exist. 



It must be equally obvious that favorable con- 

 sideration at Washington, of the problems of agri- 

 culture can only come from an administration re- 

 liably informed, conscious of the fisting emerg- 

 ency — actually solicitons. Those engaged in Agri- 

 culture, as producers, speaking as they must 

 through their active representative organizations, 

 can be presumed to know best the condition and 

 present situation in their industry — and not a mere 

 handful whose sole interest in, agriculture is cen- 

 tered in the revenue to be derived to them from 

 handling and dealing in the commodities of agri- 

 culture, and in which costs of production and fair 

 exchange values are entirely disregarded — under 

 the present order of things. 



PRINCIPLES WILL NOT DOWN 



The principles, embodied in the McNary-Haugen 

 bill, will not down. Agriculture demands equality 

 with industry and labor under our protective sys- 

 tem which so operates under prevailing conditions 

 as to favor other major classes at the expense of 

 agriculture. 



It is too early for us to make definite recommen- 

 dations for immediate procedure. We shall wait 

 until the platforms of the major political parties 

 are made public. We desire now to assure our 

 members and friends that we are in the fight to 

 the finish to secure for agriculture equality with 

 Industry and Labor. 



During the interim members and friends are 

 urged to a-scertain the attitude of candidates for 

 public office toward our basic industrj- — Agricul- 

 ture. 



Following is an analysis of the vote by states, 

 and by groups of states : 



VOTE ON THE BILL BT STATES 



ALABAMA 



DMrieS 



1 



10 



McDuAfl 



BUI 



StracKll 



J«ffer« 



BowUns 



Ollnr 



Allcvod 

 Buddl0«toii 



Monroe Till* 



Montffomorr 



Osark 



Annlston 



lAfarett* 



Tuvcaloooa 



AI1S004 



Tuaculnbla 



BlnnlBffhun 



Hajden 



I 



1 TlUmu 



4 



s RacoB 



< RMd 



7 



ARKAXBAS 



DriTor 

 OldScM 



j :h 



Parka 



<Cestla««« M wmm* <> 



Ovcvelm 

 I F»r«tt«Ti]i« 



