e of 

 ction 

 ners. 

 forld 



the 

 y of 



the 

 mer- 

 : an 

 nent 

 ■ in- 

 day 

 ions 

 mer- 

 that 

 war. 



I 





Can anyone deny that the mothers, that 

 industries and that farmers responded? 



With the closing of the war, untold 

 numbers of American homes were left 

 with vacant chairs and heartaches yet un- 

 soothed. It found the industries of 

 America in a state of greatly expanded 

 production, and with agriculture in the 

 same condition. Forty million acres of 

 additional land had been put under the 

 plow. Because of organization and re- 

 sulting controls, industry soon readjusted 

 its operations. Largely because of lack 

 of organization and understanding of 

 ultimate effect, farmers continued to pro- 

 duce. 



Up to that period there was relative 

 stability in the percentage of national in- 

 come enjoyed by American farmers. 

 Through adjustment in production, in- 

 dustry succeeded in maintaining a rea- 

 sonable degree of stability in the price 

 levels of its products. By continuing 



"TO MARKET — TO MARKET — in 1932 



production, farmers experienced year af- 

 ter year a lesser total return for an in- 

 creased output. It was this experience 

 that brought forth from the early studies 

 of the farm problem — the term "farm 

 surplus." Is there anyone who can deny 

 these basic statements? It was this early 

 study of the agricultural problem that re- 

 sulted in the McNary-Haugen bills — 

 popularly known as "equalization fee leg- 

 islation." Because of the prominent part 

 taken by Iowa farmers in the fight for 

 thi» legislation, I feel no further explana- 

 tion as to its purf)Ose and the reason 

 therefor is necessary. 



I pause only long enough to pay trib- 

 ute to that great son of Iowa, the de- 

 parted Mr. Haugen, for his consistent 

 tenacious struggle in behalf of that leg- 

 islation though fighting against great 

 odds in Congress and within the leader- 

 ship of his party. Farmers carried the 

 fight to the campaign year of 1928, but 



'"* pRiceS 





were defeated. We were- promised in 

 that campaign by Mr. Hoover that, if 

 elected, farmers would be provided with 

 the opportunity through organization of 

 cooperative institutions to handle the 

 surplus problem; that adequate funds 

 would be available to finance these co- 

 operatives; that through cooperation, 

 farmers could segregate their surpluses or 

 hold them for better markets. 



While never being able to agree that 

 such an approach to the farm problem of- 

 fered a solution, yet, I am glad to accord 

 to Mr. Hoover the credit for keeping his 

 word in every detail covering the prom- 

 ises made in the discussions of the farm 

 surplus issue as it was then presented. 



The record of the next four years dis- 

 closes that while much was accomplished 

 in the development of cooperative mar- 

 keting organizations, the farm surplus 

 problem steadily grew worse. Production 

 continued at high levels, but with an 

 ever-decreasing price level of farm prod- 

 ucts and continual decline in the farmers 

 share of the national income. By 1932, 

 the farm problem was recognized on 

 every hand as one that must be solved. 

 Promises were again made in the plat- 

 forms of both political parties — and 

 America made its decision. 



During that campaign. President Roos- 

 evelt promised the farmers of America 

 that, if elected, he would call together 

 the chosen leaders of American farmers 

 and if they would agree upon a program, 

 it would have his approval, provided the 

 recommendations were economically 

 sound, administratively feasible, and self- 

 supporting. I pay tribute to President 

 Roosevelt for keeping his word. Leaders 

 of American agriculture were called to- 

 gether even before the inauguration of 

 the President and were thereby prepared 

 soon after inauguration to make specific 

 recommendations to the President of the 

 United States. These recommendations 

 embodied the basic principles and essen- 

 tials provided in the Agricultural Adjust- 

 ment Act. 



It should not be forgotten that in se- 

 curing the passage of this great farm 

 law. Republican as well as Democratic 

 votes were needed and secured. In my 

 home state, every congressman f rorri with- 

 out the city of Chicago, regardless of 

 party affiliation actively supported this 

 legislation. Four congressmen from the 

 city of Chicago supported it. In the state 

 of Iowa, it is interesting to note that 

 while having three Republicans and six 

 Democratic congressmen at that time, the 

 three Republicans and a majority of the 

 Democrats, supported the legislation. It 

 is also interesting to note that in your 

 state, then having one Republican and 

 one Democratic senator, both are re- 

 corded as supporting the passage of this 

 farm law. With such a record by the 

 congressional delegations of the two 



OCTOBER. 1936 



