o 



, CCASIONAL s e 1 f - 

 examination and con- 

 fession is good for the 

 soul, 



A most frank and open in- 

 dictment of the attitude of 

 the organized grain trade in 

 opposing the McNary-Haugen 



sorplus control program back in the middle '20s, and other 

 constructive measures, was made last October by C. D. Sturte- 

 vant, president of a large Chicago grain commission company, 

 in a speech before the Ohio Mill and Feed Dealers 'Association. 



The address, considering its source, is an amazing criticism 

 of the obstructionist attitude of the grain trade toward pro- 

 gressive measures for the public interest advanced by organ- 

 ized farmers during the past decade or more. 



Speaking of the early measures for improving the farmers' 

 economic condition, Mr. Sturtevant said: 



"Under the first classification, the McNary-Haugen plan and 

 the export debenture plan have been little heard of recently 

 altho prior to 1929 they were the main objects of attention in 

 grain-politico circles. Almost unanimously, the grain trade 

 opposed these artificial pro- 



Was McNary-Hausen 

 Bill Defeat K Victory? 



posals to dispose of our surplus 

 wheat abroad in order to rid 

 ourselves of the growing sur- 

 plus, that Old Man of the Sea 

 who had, according to \he best 

 advice from Washington, been 

 riding the neck of the Amer- 

 ican farmer since the close of 

 the World War. 



"Our open and vigorous fight 

 against these measures was 

 successful, and when President 

 Coolidge bravely vetoed the 

 second 'McNary-Haugen Bill, 

 his veto message was hailed as 

 a classic by the trade and ac- 

 corded a place in the national 

 archives vrith the other great 

 state papers of other great 

 presidents. 



"Was Defeat of McNary- 

 Haugen Bill a Victory? I think 

 there is but little doubt that 

 our opposition to these plans 

 was the deciding factor in their 

 defeat and that if the grain 

 trade had been 'sold' on one of 

 these theories, had been asked 

 for their co-operation as the 



present Administration has ' •■. \ ^ 



asked our co-operation in the A. A. A. program; if, in short, 

 one of these plans had been, adopted, and administered with 

 the help and co-operation of the grain trade, the whole course 

 of farm relief history and perhaps the economic and political 

 history of the nation would have been changed. We would 

 not have had the Farm Marketing Act of 1929, the Federal 

 Farm Board, the Grain Stabilizatien Corporation (lately de- 

 ceased) nor the Farmers National Grain Corporation, very 

 much alive, and now seeking control of the grain marketing 

 machinery of the country. In view of Farm Board history, I 

 wonder if we really won a victory by defeating the McNary- 

 Haugen Bill? 



"We have r^eatedly claimed that the Farm Board program 

 was one of the factors responsible for the financial collapse 

 of 1929 and the resulting economic depression that is still with 

 us. Shall we not^ therefore, also take our share of the respon- 

 sibility for present eoBditions? If we had not defeated the Hc- 



Repentance? 



Nary-Haagen Bill, but had, 

 on the contrary, accepted it, 

 endorsed it and assisted in its 

 administration, we would 

 have had no Federal Farm 

 Board. If the plan had op- 

 erated successfully, we would 

 have had no grain surpluses 

 and who is there to gainsay that the present depression would 

 have been neither so severe nor so long had Farm Board op- 

 erations been out of the picture during the troublous four 

 years of the Hoover administration. In fact, who is there to 

 say that our McNary-Haugren victory was not a vital and per- 

 haps governing factor in the national election of 1932 and in 

 the resulting rise to power of the present domestic adminis- 

 tration. A little more consideration for the grain trade on the 

 part of farm leaders and the Republican administration in 1927 

 and 1928 and a little less uncompromising attitude upon our 

 part, might have entirely changred economic and political his- 

 tory during the past five years. 



"From 1929 to 1933, practically during the entire four years 

 of the Hoover administration, we were again in an open knock- 

 down and drag-out fight with 



A^AyB€ I OUGHT 

 TO QUIT THE WKECKING 

 CKEW AND JOIN THE 

 CONSTHUCTiON GANG-] 



Washington on the farm mar- 

 keting act, the Farm Board 

 and its children and in general 

 on the attempt of the Federal 

 Farm Board to control prices 

 by means of manipulativ* 

 measures and price control. 

 Again, our program had a dis- 

 tinct effect on national politics. 

 The Farm Board and its pol- 

 icies were a leading, issue in 

 the 1982 campaign and un- 

 doubtedly, materially contrib- 

 uted to the Democratic vic- 

 tory. I know definitely of my 

 own knowledge that in at least 

 one important congressional 

 district the fight of the grain 

 trade against the Republican 

 candidate for Congress who 

 was a prominent Farm Board 

 supporter, definitely defeated 

 him for re-election. 



"We Paved Way for A. A. A. 

 —We first helped defeat the 



McNary-Haugen Bill and thus 

 paved the way for the Farm 

 Marketing Act and thus helped 

 to make the failure of the latter 

 measure and of its administra- 

 tion a major issue in 1932 elections. I doubt if the Republican 

 party has any deep-seated affection for the grain trade. 



"The defeat of the McNary-Haugen Bill, a plan to dispose 

 of our surpluses abroad, followed by the Farm Board debacle 

 which was a failure to control prices by surplus control, logi- 

 cally led to the present Agricultural Adjustment Act which, 

 after the defeat of one plan and the failure of the other serves 

 well to illustrate the tenacity, perhaps the eternal qualities of 

 bureaucracy. The present Act delegates complete power to the 

 Secretary of Agriculture to follow any and every plan hereto- 

 fore suggested. He can, if he chooses, follow in principle at 

 least, the McNary-Haugen Act, the Export Debenture Plan or 

 restore the Federal Farm Board (under a different name per- 

 haps for political reasons) to its pristine vigor. A\Tiat is the 

 com loan program and Secretary Wallace's 'Ever Constant 

 Granary' but the Farm Board surplus control plan in a new 



MARCH. 1935 



