fl Permanent Program 

 for Agriculture 



M < 



t; 



i^ 



i> 



(Continued from page 7) 



taining the position of processors who 

 throughout 1935 had in substantial de- 

 gree sought and secured injunction 

 against the payment of processing taxes 

 into the Federal Treasury. 



I cannot imagine any farmer worthy 

 of the name or any informed consumer 

 of farm products receiving this decision 

 with other than an uncontrolled in- 

 dignation. I cannot imagine any red- 

 blooded American recognizing this 

 court order, even though legally cor- 

 rect, as in keeping with either equity 

 or justice. I cannot even imagine a 

 self-respecting processor attempting to 

 defend this decision as having any de- 

 gree of fairness. As everyone knows, 

 ir the early days of the administration 

 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 

 processors, in general, and packers, in 

 particular, organized a tremendous vol- 

 ume of propaganda with what appeared 

 to be the purpose of disorganizing farm- 

 ers by their repeated statements that a 

 processing tax on hogs had the effect of 

 reducing returns to the producers in an 

 amount equivalent to the tax. 



I was in Washington when this de- 

 cision was handed down. I am glad to 

 report that, without exception, whether 

 men high in administration circles, con- 

 gressional leaders, associates in farm or- 

 ganization work, hotel proprietors, cab 

 drivers or bell boys, they were of one 

 mind — the processing taxes did not be- 

 long to the processor and they were will- 

 ing to join in a fight to see that every 

 penny levied and uncollected up to and 

 including January 6th be covered into 

 the treasury of the United States. We 

 should assist in securing this result. 



The six to three decision by the Su- 

 preme Court invalidating the Agricul- 

 tural Adjustment Act brought the farm- 

 ers of the nation again face to face with 

 their greatest and basic problem with 

 which they have been confronted for 

 many years. Time will not permit any 

 discussion of either the merit or de- 

 merit of this decision. I cannot resist 

 saying, however, that my every impulse 

 reacts in disagreement with the direct 

 implication, if not words of Justice 

 Roberts' opinion, that the Act was un- 

 constitutional because it was dealing 

 with a local problem and, second, be- 

 cause the ultimate aims and purposes of 

 the Act were to secure regulation of 

 agricultural production. 



While claiming neither ability nor justi- 

 fication for discussing legal technical- 



ities, yet I cannot see even common 

 sense in defining the agricultural prob- 

 lem as any other than a national issue 

 and responsibility, and affecting the 

 general welfare; also, if I can under- 

 stand words, the ultimate aims and pur- 

 poses of the Agricultural Adjustment 

 Act were to assist in securing and main- 

 taining a price level for the basic prod- 

 ucts of farms that would insure the 

 same purchasing power in the all-com- 

 modity markets as was enjoyed during 

 the average of the years 1909 to 1914. 

 Regulation certainly was not the pur- 

 pose, but incident to the ultimate end. 



Whether or not we agree with the 

 majority opinion, the cold fact remains 

 that it must be accepted, at least for a 

 time, as the limiting power within which 

 the all-important business principle of 

 adjusting supply of farm products to 

 the total demand of markets must be 

 found. Some have suggested and others 

 have urged that the answer lies in an 

 amendment to the Constitution of the 

 United States. While impulses may re- 

 act favorably to this suggestion, yet 

 calm judgment dictates such a course 

 would be fraught with long delay, if at 

 all successful. Even though this course 

 of action might be immediately success- 

 ful, I admonish careful thought and 

 consideration before such action is un- 

 dertaken. It might be found that through 

 greatly liberalizing the limitations of 

 the present Constitution, such a course 

 would ultimately permit legislation det- 

 rimental to farmers and similar middle 

 class interests of the nation. 



To be successful, farmers must keep 

 the farm problem and their program for 

 its solution as an economic rather than 

 a political question. We cannot depend 

 too much on the metropolitan press for 

 moulding public opinion in support of 

 an effective farm program. There are 



THE COUNTRY LIFE INSURANCE CON- 

 (erence in the Armory starts off the aey. 



outstanding exceptions, but generally 

 speaking, individual and selfish class in- 

 terest rather than real statesmanship 

 seem to dictate editorial policies. 



I believe 1936 will prove to be the 

 most crucial year of modern history in 

 determining the future course of the 

 nation. Statements appearing in the 

 press and by many in public and politi- 

 cal life indicate a campaign of bitter- 

 ness and misstatement of fact, supported 

 by propaganda. We must be able to dis- 

 tinguish the political demagogue from 

 the statesman. We must be prepared to 

 sift the wheat from the chaff. We should 

 regard with distrust and suspicion every 

 candidate for an executive or legislative 

 office who fails to clearly and definitely 

 set forth his or her position on all mat- 

 ters of major interest to agriculture. 



If our 20 years' experience as an or- 

 ganization teaches anything, it is that 

 only by constant vigilance and persistent 

 effort through organization may we 

 expect to solve our problems. We have 

 tasted discouraging defeat, as an organ- 

 ization, many times, but by pressing on 

 and surmounting temporary obstacles, 

 victory has come again and again. Let 

 us never forget that our government and 

 our laws will never be any better than 

 we help make them. We, as farmers, are 

 as much a part of the government as 

 any other group of citizens. 



With these convictions, I can do no 

 less than appeal to every Farm Bureau 

 member of Illinois to do his or her part 

 to secure not only a better understand- 

 ing on the part of their city friends as 

 to the aims and the purposes of our or- 

 ganization, but to take whatever time 

 may be necessary to educate and con- 

 vert their farmer neighbors to the 

 righteousness of our cause and the sound- 

 ness of the organization's program. With 

 this cooperation, we are certain to win. 



It is my firm belief that only through 

 well sustained group action can or will 

 farmers finally and permanently secure 

 that chief of all objectives — equality of 

 opportunity for the farmers of state and 

 nation. Above all else, the Illinois Agri- 

 cultural Association is committed to this 

 definite purpose. 



There will be neither surrender, nor 

 compromise, as we move forward. The 

 right of the American farmer to receive 

 for his products prices which will give 

 him average purchasing power in line 

 with the prevailing price levels of in- 

 dustry and labor cannot be questioned. 

 To surrender in this fight or denial by 

 Government of such justice to farmers 

 can mean only one thing — a return of 

 national chaos. This must not and shall 

 not happen. I have an abiding faith that 

 farmers will arise, complete their or- 

 ganization and thus meet and overcome 

 the great challenge with which they are 

 confronted. 



16 



I. A. A. RECORD 



