r 





^T^^^^^ The c^^ 



Illinois A^ctdtural Association 



RECORD 



Published mdnthly by the Illinois Apricultural Assorlatinn at 121 So. Flftli St., Mar-i;all. li!.; Editorial OfHres, fi08 So. Dearborn St.. fliiraco. III. Entered as ■jerond- 

 class matter at l)n.^t-ofnce at Marsliall, 111., June 16, 1930. under the Art of March 3. Is7:t. Acceptanre for mailing; at siiecial rate of itu^^iaire i»n>vided in Seetlon 412, 



Art of i-'rt' ;i^, 1 '■.i,-),autii'>riz<'d O't.27. l'Jl!5. Address all roininiitiications for put)lifatiiin to Kditorial Offlie>. lllino s At:' i' ultuial .\>-su< lali'-n Ufnid. litis So. I»!-.trti"rn $: , (lii'-ano. 



Number 1 1 



November, 1930 



Volume 8 



Tax Amendment Goes 



Down in Nov. 4 Vote 



I 

 » 



i 



Farmers Stand Well Together in 



Defeating Measure, Compare 



with 1926 Amendment Vote 



AS wc go to press, election officials 

 and newspapers are still tabulating 

 the results of the proposed revenue 

 amendment which appeared on the niiin 

 ballot under thj misleading label "Tax 

 Relief Amendment." 



The m^Msure 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 da\"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 Propos.il 



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 

 countv 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 98 3 Against. 



Whiteside County Figures 



In Vi'hiteside 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 cont.iin no towns of any conse- 

 quence, the vote was 2 to 1 Against 

 the tax measure. In Hume town-ship — 

 all rural — it was 4 to 1 Against; in 

 Hahnaman 3 to I ; 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 m.'asurcs, designed 

 to lift seme of the burden from prop- 

 erty, for introduction in the approach- 

 ing 5 7th general assembly. 



Boycott Hearing in 



Live Stock Case Held 



Government Citation Charges Boy- 

 cott and Discrimination Against 

 Co-Op. by Commission Men 



PROCEEDINGS agiinst more than 

 two score firms or individuals oper- 

 ating as market agents or dealers ai the 

 St. Louis National Stock Yards for dis- 

 crimination against live stock co-oper- 

 ative organizations, began in iIk" Federal 

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



Immediately on the opening of the 

 hearing motions to dismiss the inquiry 

 bv Secret.!r\' 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 bv Examiner J. 

 B. Horigan, the Federal attorney con- 

 ducting the hearing. 



Ketner Is Witness 



I-. G. Ketner, manager of the Na- 

 tional Order Buying C^ompany, was the 

 first witness called. He slated that he- 

 cause of discrimination against the Or- 

 der Buying Company their \x)!ume of 

 business had dropped from 2;) per cent 

 to 10 per cent of the orders filled on 

 the market in a period of about three 

 v.'ccks. 



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 C^om- 

 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. 

 "^'oung nor .Mr. Moody were agreeable 

 to the proposal nor were trading rela- 

 tions improved following this confer- 

 ence. 



The attorneys for the rispondents 

 were scheduled to cross examine Mr. 

 Ketner on I'ridav, November 7. 



