Here is the Story of Organized Agricul- 

 ture's Fight for Parity Prices and Restored 

 Farm Income. Read it! Begin on Page 4. 

 — Editor. -f- -♦- -♦- -f- -f- -f- 



greatest farm states in America, with a 

 definite history of this law disclosing 

 that it originated from the ranks of or- 

 ganized agriculture, how can any honest 

 person seeking public office today inject 



■ either the problem, the Agricultural Ad- 

 justment Act or what may yet further be 



; needed to solve the farm problem into 

 the heat of partisan discussions? 



When asked numerous times as to 

 whom I shall support in this campaign, 

 my universal answer thus far has been — 

 that I shall vote for no candidate for any 

 office of an executive or legislative char- 

 acter who through insidious misstatement 

 of fact attempts to inject the farm prob- 

 . lem and its solution into the partisan 



■ ; considerations of the campaign of 1936. 

 ' I do not mean that candidates should not 



'be accorded the full privilege, yes, duty 

 of offering constructive criticism of pres- 

 ent remedies or suggestions to further 

 assist in speeding the date of adequate 



■ ■■; and permanent solution of farm prob- 

 . lems. I refer only to that type of candi- 



■ date who offers volumes of criticism but 

 is totally lacking in constructive remedy. 

 Farmers have the influence to control 

 the manner in which the farm problem 

 is handled in this campaign. I hope 

 . they will discharge their responsibility. 



Many seem to feel that not only the 

 Agricultural Adjustment Act, but also 

 the McNary-Haugen Bill resulted from 

 the thinking of some narrow hair-brained 

 leaders of organized agriculture. Maybe 

 - that is what some of us should be called. 

 Again the members of the Farm Bureaus 

 have within their power the correction of 

 this situation, if they agree with such 

 school of thought. If that be true, such 

 leadership should be left at home — the 

 same as candidates for office who fail to 

 measure up to their responsibility should 

 be left at home for further education. 



The McNary-Haugen bill and later the 

 Agricultural Adjustment Act were the re- 

 sult of careful, painstaking study of the 

 manner in which American business se- 

 cured prompt readjustment of its opera- 

 tions when immediately after the close 

 of the world war, American industrial 

 plants were in a greatly expanded state. 

 Those studies revealed in the early days 

 that we had a two-price system operating 

 generally in the manufacturing field of 



America. Surpluses in production, if 

 they occurred, were held apart from the 

 American market and not allowed to de- 

 press price levels. In many cases sur- 

 pluses were shipped abroad and sold in 

 the world markets for whatever could be 

 obtained. This was particularly true in 

 the agricultural implement field. Is there 

 a farmer in this audience who will not 

 agree that the price of agricultural im- 

 plements has been maintained — not 

 only throughout the twenties but through- 

 out the serious depression through which 

 we have been passing.' Does anyone 

 think this condition prevailed as a result 

 of continued production, regardless of 

 demand and regardless of price level.' 

 The Agricultural Adjustment Act was 

 also the result of the study of principles 

 upon which American business operates. 

 May I pause for a moment to review 

 just a few of the facts this study reveals. 

 By comparing the average production 

 and price levels of products in the years 

 1927, 1928 and 1929 with 1930, 1931, 

 and 1932, we find that in the agricultural 

 implement field, there was an 80 per cent 

 reduction in production the latter three 

 year period under that of the former, but 

 price levels were substantially sustained. 

 In the motor car field, we find an 80 per 

 cent reduction in production but prices 

 were held at only a 16 per cent decline 

 There was a 65 per cent cut in the pro- 

 duction of cement but only in 18 per cent 

 decline in price. A study of the iron 



MOVING LOUD SPEAKER 

 It carried the news to festival visitors and 



contestants. 



flllNOIS FARM 

 SPORTS FESTIVAL 



m»m AqriciltiiuJ Assoddtion 



and steel industry discloses^n 83 per 

 cent reduction in production and a 20 

 cent decline in' price. In the manufacture 

 of automobile tires, the record shows a 

 70 per cent reduction in production and 

 a price level decline of 33 per cent. In 

 the case of textiles manufactured in 

 America there was only a 30 per cent cut 

 in production with a price decline of 43 

 per cent. But in agriculture, we reduced 

 production only six per cent and we ex- 

 perienced a 63 per cent decline in price. 



So it is that the principles adopted and 

 put in operation by American business 

 were taken as the foundation of the Agri- 

 cultural Adjustment Act. 



I have reviewed in a general way the 

 developments as we have witnessed them 

 in the production and the price field from 

 1919 to the close of 1932. Lets be more 

 specific and see the effect these factors 

 have had upon national welfare as dis- 

 closed by official reports covering total 

 individual national net income and the 

 portion of that incopne enjoyed by farm- 

 ers. 



In 1919, the national income of the 

 United States amounted to $59,550,000, 

 000. Of this amount, farmers net in- 

 come amounted to $12,115,000,000 or 

 20.34 per cent. In 1920, national in- 

 come was $65,928,000,000 — farmers 

 receiving therefrom $8,187,000,000, or 

 12.42 per cent. By two year periods, 

 notice the trends. In 1922, the national 

 income was $57,926,000,000, farmers re- 

 ceiving $5,796,000,000, or 10.01 per 

 cent. In 1924, national income was $68,- 

 461,000,000, farmers receiving $6,981,- 

 000,000 or 10.20 per cent. In 1926, na- 

 tional income was $74,954,000,000, 

 farmers receiving $6,706,000,000, or 

 8.95 per cent. In 1928, national income 

 was $77,291,000,000, farmers receiving 

 $6,690,000,000, or 8.66 per cent. In 

 1930, national income was $72,890,000,- 

 000, farmers receiving $4,899,000,000, 

 or 6.72 per cent. In 1932, national in- 

 come was $47,900,000,000, farmers re- 

 ceiving $2,579,000,000, or 5.38 per cent. 



Even this short study confirms the ef- 

 fects of adjusted production in industry 

 in maintaining price levels of its products 

 compared with unadjusted or uncon- 

 trolled agricultural production resulting 

 in the loss of three-fourths of agricul- 

 ture's share in the national income. 



In other words, a lesser controlled 

 production in industry made larger re- 

 turns, while a larger production in agri- 

 culture brought continuously a smaller 

 return in total dollars. 



Before reviewing the records of na- 

 tional income and farm income since 

 1932, it appears advisable to review the 

 steps taken by organized farmers in rec- 

 ommending procedure in administration 

 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. 

 Time will not permit a review of the 

 record as to all that took place relative 

 (Continued on page 31) 



I. A. A. RECORD 



