STORY OF THE GRAIN EXCHANGE 



BILL 



f- 







-S.; 





» 



i'-- 



.•:K tC 



i7 



■ *' ■' 



Finally in the most solemn and dig- 

 nified meeting of the General Assem- 

 bly, the roll call was on the passage of 

 S. B. 446. As a result of that roll call 

 the bill was passed by a vote of 80 

 to 64. 



The roll call follows: 



AYES — Acker, Baird, Bandy, Beck- 

 man, Bippus, Boyle, Church, Clark, 

 Coia, Cork, Curran, Cutler Douglas, 

 Durso, Eckley, Elrod, Ewing, Finneran, 

 Franz, Matt.; Gallas, Garriott, Gill, 

 Gormley, Griffin, C. A.; Hoar, Hoff, 

 Holmgren, Hrdlicka, Jacobson, Jenco, 

 Johnson, E. A. W.; Juul, Kersey,, 

 Krump, Lager, Lee, Lipka, Lyon, Mar- 

 inier, McCarthy, McCaskrin, McSwee- 

 ney, Mester, Minsky, Moore, Mugler, 

 Murray, Noonan, O'Brien, O'Grady, 

 Overland, Pacelli, Peffers, Perina, Phil- 

 lips, Powers, Propper, Rategan, Rew, 

 Rush, Ryan, Ed.; Ryan, Frank; 

 Schnackenberg, Searle, Shanahan, Sod- 

 erstrom, Stanfield, Steven, Stewart, 

 Swanson, Trandell, Turner, C. M.; 

 Turner, E. Vf.; Turner, S. B.; Weber, 

 Weeks, Weiss, Wood, Wright, and 

 Scholes. 



NAYS — Allen, Arnold, Babb, Baker, 

 Bauer, Baxter, Branson, Bray, Breen, 

 Browne, Bruer, Bush, Castle, Chois- 

 ser, Chynoweth, Corzine, Davis, De- 

 vine, Eisenhart, Fahy, Fekete, Foster, 

 Franz, C. D.; Green, Hanley, Hawkins, 

 Hennebry, Holten, Hunter, Hutson, 

 Igoe, Jackson, Johnson, G. J.; Kasser- 

 man, Lohmann, Luckey, Malloy, Mar- 

 tens, Martin, McAdams, McClugage, 

 Miller, O'Hair, O'Neill, Petri, Porter, 

 Reeves, Rennick, Rice, Robbins, Rob- 

 inson, Roe, Sinnett, Snell, Sparks, Sul- 

 livan, Teel, Tice, Vaughan, Waller, 

 Warren, Whitely, Wilson, and Wylie. 



. Climax of Fight 



The climax of the biggest fight of 

 many sessions was reached on the roll 

 call. Many members of the lower 

 House had withstood tremendous pres- 

 sure and some of them had been threat- 

 ened with political annihilation unless 

 they voted in favor of the bills. 

 Farmers should scan this roll call with 

 care and find out how their represen- 

 tatives voted on this measure. 



They owe it to the representatives 

 who withstood tremendous pressure 

 from every angle and voted in their 

 interest, not only a debt of gratitude, 

 but their united support in the future 

 endeavors of these men who thus fear- 

 lessly faced political death. Only by 

 showing such support and gratitude 

 can agriculture hope to build up a 

 morale among members representing 

 down-state communities that will as- 

 sure proper attention to their in- 

 terests in future years. Let us all back 

 them up. 



Farmers and Farm Bureaus must 

 use particular vigilance with their 



Boards of Review and tax levying 

 bodies in order that the raise in taxa- 

 tion due to this upsetting of the tax- 

 ing system be kept as low as possible. 

 Property valuations must be equalized 

 and the strictest economy demanded 

 of all taxing bodies if taxes are not 

 to reach the point of confiscation of 

 Illinois farms, ■ 



S. B. 148— GRAIN EXCHANGE 



SUPERVISION AND 



REGULATION 



THIS Bill, in its final form, as 

 passed by the Senate and remain- 

 ing on third reading on the House 

 calendar, defeated as the session 

 closed, was prepared, drafted and 

 sponsored by the Illinois Agricultural 

 Association. It embodied needed leg- 

 islation on the subject. It was in- 

 tended to supplement existing Federal 

 supervision imposed by the Grain Fu- 

 tures Act. It proposed, in the com- 

 mon interests of the grower, the grain 

 trade, the gjain exchanges and the 

 public generally, to extend State su- 

 pervision to grain trading on the pub- 

 lic exchanges, and to the exchanges. 

 It was proposed in view of the vast 

 public interest in trading and the con- 

 duct of traders on grain exchanges. 



The Bill was prepared and drafted 

 in the light of experiences had by the 

 Federal Grain Futures Administration, 

 and in view of the findings of the Fed- 

 eral Trade Commission. The Associa- 

 tion requested and received valuable 

 information and assistance from rep- 

 resentatives of these Federal bodies, 

 in the preparation of the Bill. It was 

 a constructive proposal, offered in the 

 interests of the grain trade as 

 well as in the interests of the grow- 

 er. In our opinion, it would have done 

 much to restore public confidence in 

 trading on the Board of Trade of the 

 City of Chicago — in assuring, under 

 state supervision, equal opportunity to 

 all traders with a resultant truly free, 

 open, and competitive grain market at 

 Chicago, as should be maintained. 



c Provided For Commission 



The Bill provided for the creation 

 of a commission within the Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture, composed of 

 three members of which the Director 

 of Agriculture would be chairman. It 

 provided for the licensing of public 

 grain exchanges and operators on such 

 exchanges. It gave co-operative or- 

 ganizations engaged in handling grain 

 the right to seats on exchanges and 

 protected them against discrimination. 

 It gave the commission certain rights 

 respecting rules that might be adopted. 

 In short it gave to the State simply 

 such regulatory power as it already 



exercises over practically every other 

 public interest. 



In the course of the debate in the 

 Senate it was charged that the pro- 

 posed legislation would destroy the 

 Chicago Board of Trade or drive it 

 out of the State. Recessions in the 

 price of grain were attributed to the 

 prospect of passage of the bilL }, 



The Illinois Agricultural Associiation 

 was pictured as a gigantic organiza- 

 tioi^, attempting to overthrow the 

 Board of Trade and establish a new 

 system. 



This was all old stuff to the Illinois 

 Agricultural Association representa- 

 tives. It is the stock argument of 

 powerful interests in resisting public 

 control. Proponents of the bill an- 

 swered that it was not the purpose of 

 the legislation to destroy legitimate 

 business; that the public had a right 

 to exercise certain supervision over a 

 public market. 



i The Roll Call 



After extended debate, the Bill 

 passed the Senate by a vote of 30 to 11. 

 The roll call is as follows: AYES — Abt., 

 Bailey, Barr, Bohrer, Boyd, Burgess, 

 Carlson, Dailey, Deck, Dunlap, Em- 

 mons, Flagg, Forester, Hamilton, Jew- 

 ell Kessinger, Lantz, McNay, Meentz, 

 Meyers, Reynolds, Searcy, Smith, 

 Sneed, Starr, Telford, Thompson, Wil- 

 son, and Woods. NAYS — Barbour, 

 Boehm, Broderick, Courtney, Denvir, 

 Haenisch, Huebsch, Hughes, Joyce, 

 McDermott, Marks, and Swift. 



Senator Denvir of Chicago then 

 changed his vote from "no" to "aye" 

 and served notice that he would move 

 to reconsider on the next legislative 

 day. This motion was duly made, but 

 failed to carry and the bill was passed. 

 Senator Cuthbertson, who was one 

 of the active supporters of the Bill, 

 was compelled to be away when the 

 bill was passed, but was present and 

 voted with the proponents against the 

 motion to reconsider. 



After passage of the bill in the Sen- 

 ate every known means of delay was 

 resorted to, to obstruct its passage. 

 Representative G, J. Johnson, who had 

 been selected to pilot the bill through 

 the House, had been assured by the 

 speaker that it would be referred to 

 the Committee on Agriculture. In 

 spite of that assurance, after unwar- 

 ranted delay, the Bill was referred to 

 the Committee on License and Miscel- 

 lany, composed largely of Chicago 

 members. 



The Illinois Agricultural Association 

 representatives appeared at the Com- 

 mittee hearing and the Bill was re- 

 ported out, but with the recommenda- 

 tions "that it do not pass." 



When the report of the committee 

 came on the floor of the House, Mr. 

 (Continued on page 8) 



i 



