Illinois A^cultural Association 



RECORD 



PuMlibed monthl; by th« lUtnoli Am-lcultural Association at 124 So. Firth St., Marshall, 111.; Editorial Offices, 608 So. Durbom St., Cblcaco, III. Entered «s 



class matter at post-office at Marshall, 111., June 16, 1930, under the Act of March 3, 1879. Acceptance for malllnE at special rate of postage provided in Section 411, 



Act of Feb 28, 1^23, authorized Oct. 27, 1925. Address all communications for publication to Editorial Offices, Illinois Aericultural Association Record. 608 So. Dearborn St., Chicago. 



Number 11 



November, 1930 



Volume 8 



Tax Amendment Goes 



Down in Nov. 4 Vote 



Farmers Stand Well Together in 



Defeating Measure, Compare 



with 1926 Amendment Vote 



AS we go to press, election officials 

 and newspapers are still tabulating 

 the results of the proposed revenue 

 amendment which appeared on the main 

 ballot under the misleading label "Tax 

 Relief Amendment." 



The measure was badly defeated. 

 That much is certain, although the 

 count is still far from completed. 



One newspaper computing the vote 

 on the basis of the first day's returns 

 stated that around 800,000 voted on 

 the measure out of more than 2,000,000 

 who went to the polls. This same pub- 

 lication reports, "Of the 790,000 who 

 voted on the amendment, 440,000 were 

 against it." 



If this statement is roughly accu- 

 rate, 3 50,000 voted yes. 



Early Returns 



Another report shows that 4,762 pre- 

 cincts out of 7,109 in Illinois voted as 

 follows: Yes, 219,196; No, 312,889. 

 The Associated Press statement of Nov. 

 6 showed that 4,948 precincts out of 

 7,109 in Illinois voted as follows: No, 

 330,622; Yes, 236,376. 



What was in the minds of the vast 

 number of people who failed to vote 

 on the measure is something for conjec- 

 ture. , It is likely that the majority of 

 these were confused over the proposal 

 and so did nothing. It is also likely 

 that many who had not studied the 

 measure were attracted by the catchy 

 title with the "bait" underneath it and 

 voted Yes. Many contend that the 

 measure was submitted in an illegal 

 manner and there is good evidence to 

 justify this belief. It is doubtful if 

 the amendment would have become law 

 had it received the required constitu- 

 tional majority. 



Behind 1926 Proposal 



In spite of the advantages for ap- 



proval the 1930 amendment had in the 

 way it was handled on the ballot, it ran 

 considerably behind the better amend- 

 ment of 1926 which was submitted 

 on a separate small ballot, and which 

 was vigorously supported by the Illinois 

 Agricultural Association. 



A check-up of the Nov, 4 vote in 

 McLean county supplied by the Bloom- 

 ington Pantagraph shows that 86 pre- 

 cincts in the county voted Yes, 4,426; 

 No, 4,439. Four years ago the McLean 

 county vote was 5,174 YES and 4,119 

 AGAINST. 



Mercer county, which is strictly 

 rural, offers even a more striking illus- 

 tration. Returns supplied by the Mer- 

 cer County Farm Bureau, which op- 

 posed the amendment this year, show 

 1,896 votes Against and only 630 For. 



In 1926 when the Farm Bureau sup- 

 ported the amendment the vote was 

 3,362 Yes and only 983 Against. ■.. . ? 



Whiteside County Figures 



In Whiteside county, the Whiteside 

 Sentinel reports that 2,692 voted No on 

 the amendment this year, while 1,970 

 voted Yes. That the farmers of White- 

 side county heeded the advice of the 

 Farm Bureau, the I. A. A., Prairie 

 Farmer and Illinois Farmer in opposing 

 the measure is revealed in a check-up of 

 the vote in the strictly rural townships. 



In Genesee and Hopkins townships, 

 which contain no towns of any conse- 

 quence, the vote was 2 to 1 Against 

 the tax measure. In Hume township — 

 all rural — it was 4 to 1 Against; in 

 Hahnaman 3 to 1 ; in Montgomery and 

 Jordan nearly 3 to 1. In most of the 

 cities of this county the measure got a 

 majority or about an even break. 



All this indicates that Illinois farm- 

 ers are presenting a reasonably solid 

 front in legislative matters affecting 

 their welfare. 



The Illinois Agricultural Association, 

 in line with its policy of being con- 

 structive in needed reforms is already 

 at work on helpful and constructive 

 suggestions for tax msasures, designed 

 to lift some of the burden from prop- 

 erty, for introduction in the approach- 

 ing 57 th general assembly. 



Boycott Hearing in 



Live Stock Case Held 



Government Citation Charges Boy- 

 cott and Discrimination Against 

 Co-Op. by Commission Men .. ,. 



PROCEEDINGS against more than 

 two score firms or individuals ojjcr- 

 ating as market agents or dealers at the 

 St. Louis National Stock Yards for dis- 

 crimination against live stock co-oper- 

 ative organizations, began in the Federal 

 building, East St. Louis, on Nov. 6. 



Immediately on the opening of the 

 hearing motions to dismiss the inquiry 

 by Secretary Hyde, a demurrer to the 

 allegations of the citation, and a mo- 

 tion for continuance, were offered by 

 the attorney for the commission men. 

 These were overruled by Examiner J. 

 B. Horigan, the Federal attorney con- 

 ducting the hearing. 



Ketner Is Witness ^ . 



F. G. Ketner, manager of the Na- 

 tional Order Buying Company, was the 

 first witness called. He stated that be- 

 cause of discrimination against the Or- 

 der Buying Company their volume of 

 business had dropped from 20 per cent 

 to 10 per cent of the orders filled on 

 the market in a period of about three 

 weeks. 



His statement, which was admitted 

 to the record, included a discussion of 

 the trading conditions on the market 

 with Frank Young, manager of the 

 Farmers* Live Stock Commission Com- 

 pany, and W. A. Moody, president of 

 the St. Louis Live Stock Exchange. 

 During this discussion the alleged boy- 

 cott was openly referred to and both 

 gentlemen were asked to assist in keep- 

 ing the market open. Neither Mr. 

 Young nor Mr. Moody were agreeable 

 to the proposal nor were trading rela- 

 tions improved following this confer- 

 ence. 



The attorneys for the respondents 

 were scheduled to cross examine Mr. 

 Ketner on Friday, November 7. 



