LEST WE FORGET 



By EARL C. SMITH 

 continued from page 6 



to the administration of the respective 

 commodity programs as authorized by the 

 Act. Corn and hogs being commodities 

 of major interest to the farmers of Iowa 

 as well as Illinois, I shall confine my re- 

 marks largely to this adjustment program. 



Only a few weeks after the passage of 

 the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Secre- 

 tary Wallace, by public pronouncement, 

 asked the farmers of the respective corn 

 belt states to assemble in mass meeting 

 and to select from their number a com- 

 mittee which would later be called into 

 session with committees from the other 

 states of the corn belt. These meetings 

 were held. The respective states were 

 each requested and authorized to select a 

 committee in number in such proportion 

 as the production of corn and hogs of 

 each state bore to the total production 

 of the 12 north central states. 



These committees met in the city of 

 Des Moines in July of 1933. After con- 

 sideration of the possibilities under the 

 Act, this general conference selected what 

 was termed "The National Corn Hog 

 Executive Committee" consisting of 25 

 men representing each of the states. The 

 corn-hog adjustment programs of 1934 

 and 1935 were the outgrowth of this 

 committee's deliberations and recom- 

 mendations. This committee was also 

 responsible for recommending to the ad- 

 ministration the so-called pig killing pro- 

 gram which resulted in the removal from 

 the market channels of the country, six 

 million pigs from the spring crop of 

 1933. 



What factors prompted the committee 

 in recommending such a radical departure 

 from the age-old practice of hog pro- 

 ducers? First, the tremendous increase 

 in pig production which had been for 

 years increasing, finally resulted in an 

 average price level for hogs in 1932 of 

 $3.59 per hundred. Second, a serious 

 drought in the north and northwest caused 

 a totally inadequate supply of feed to de- 

 velop the pig crop of that region. These 

 pigs were finding an outlet in the markets 

 of the northwest, particularly St. Paul 

 at around $1.25 per hundred. Such un- 

 heard of prices were insufficient to pay 

 transportation and commission charges. 

 The farmers of that region were destined 

 to realize nothing from either feed or hog 

 production that year. It seemed that 

 two birds could be killed with one stone. 

 First, by adequately compensating the pig 

 producers of that region and some other 

 spotted regions of the drought area, farmers 

 could be supported in their desire to refrain 

 from asking other governmental assistance. 

 Second, by placing poorly fed or starved ani- 

 mals in the soap or grease kettles, market 

 channels could be relieved of an ever-increas- 



ing bearish influence upon hog price levels. 



Because this particular effort has been so 

 seriously criticized and is now being revived 

 by demagogues on the platform, and because 

 I happen to have been chairman of the Na- 

 tional Corn-Hog Committee that made this 

 recommendation to the national administra- 

 tion - — I would not discharge my duty, I 

 could not even retain my self-respect, did I 

 continue silent, while the uninformed or those 

 intentionally attempting to deceive, continue 

 to brand this program as an insidious attempt 

 to destroy needed human food. 



If this program was unmerited, then the 

 National Corn-Hog Committee should bear 

 its just portion of the responsibility for its 

 recommendation to Secretary Wallace and 

 President Roosevelt. 



If the program was just or merited, then 

 the National Corn-Hog Committee together 

 with those administering the program are 

 deserving of a divided credit. 



It was charged in the early fall of 1933 that 

 by killing six million little pigs, pork would 

 be so high the following winter that working 

 people could not avail themselves of this meat. 

 What is the record? The price level of hogs 

 not only continued low throughout the winter 

 of 1933, but continued low throughout 1934, 

 the average farm price level of hogs being 

 $4.38 per hundred. Little attention was then 

 given by critics of the pig killing program to 

 the real reason why working people or rather 

 those out of work could not buy meat. The 

 real reason as I will later discuss is that farm- 

 ers had so long been experiencing low re- 

 turns for the products of their labor, including 

 hogs, that their income and resultant buying 

 power was so low they could not buy the 

 products of American labor and industry. 



Why was so much concern given to the kill- 

 ing of these "poor little pigs?" It would 

 seem that Christianlike or statesmanlike study 

 and response to fact would have resulted in 

 more interest in determining the cause of mil- 

 lions of human beings being out of work 

 rather than so much concern over killing six 

 million pigs at sixty to ninety days of age 

 rather than six to nine months. 



We are yet hearing that the comoarativelv 

 high price for hogs in recent months is the 



NOTICE 



Illinois Agricultural Association 

 Election of Delegates 



Notice is hereby given that in connection 

 with the annual meetings of all County 

 Farm Bureaus to be held during the month 

 of November, 1936, at the hour and place 

 to be determined by the Board of Directors 

 of each respective County Farm Bureau, the 

 members in good standing of such County 

 Farm Bureau, and who are also qualified 

 voting members of Illinois Agricultural As- 

 sociation, shall elect a delegate or delegates 

 to represent such members of Illinois Agri- 

 cultural Association and vote on all matters 

 before the next annual meeting or any special 

 meeting of the' Association, including the 

 election of officers and directors as provided 

 for in the By-Laws of the Association. 



During November, annual meetines will 

 be held in Bond, Brown, Clay, Clinton, 

 Gallatin, Lawrence, Logan, Macoupin, Mad- 

 ison, Marion, Schuyler, St. Clair and Wil- 

 liamson Counties. 



(Signed) Paul E. Mathias, 

 Corporate Secretary, 

 September 16,1936. 



result of the pig killing program. I leave 

 for any intelligent audience of farmers to 

 determine the accuracy of such statements. 



I come back to the record. Previous to 

 the adjustment program, the average price of 

 corn in 1932 in the cornbelt was 15 cents per 

 bushel. In 1933, it was 35 cents, a Ijrge 

 portion of the increase being due to the corn 

 loan program which was started late in that 

 year. In 1934, it was 78 cents; in 1935, 771/2 

 cents. The average hog price was 13.59 per 

 hundred in 1932; $3.68 in 1933; $4.38 in 



1934, to which should be added approximately 

 $1.50 from benefit payments or $5.88 per 

 hundred; and in 1935, $8.50 per hundred. 



With wheat, the reAjrd discloses an aver- 

 age price of 35 cents in 1932; 74 cents in 

 1933; 89 cents in 1934 and 88 cents in 



1935. These commodities were under adjust- 

 ment and the figures disclose an approximate 

 increase of 400 per cent in the price of com, 

 160 per cent in the price of wheat and 140 

 per cent in the price of hogs. Because of the 

 action of organized milk producers, milk was 

 not placed under adjustment. What is the 

 record as to price level? In 1932. milk was 

 $1.30 per hundred; in 1933, $1.57 and in 

 1935 $1.80 per hundred, or an increase of 

 40 per cent. 



These commodities being the four basic 

 products of cornbelt agriculture present inter- 

 esting studies as to the effect of adjustment 

 versus nonadjustment. Similar results through 

 adjustment have been obtained in other areas. 

 I refer particularly to cotton and tobacco. 

 What has been the result nationally? I told 

 you the national net income of farm people 

 in 1932 was $2,579,000,000 or 5. 38 per cent of 

 the national income. In 1933, it was $3,- 

 853,000,000 or 8. 37 per cent; in 1934, $4,- 

 465,000.000 or 8.6O per cent; and in 1935, 

 $4,750,000,000 or 8.96 per cent of the na- 

 tional income. 



This two and one-quarter billion dollars 

 increased income immediately found its way 

 into the market channels of the country. It 

 has played an important part in such economic 

 improvement as we have had. One has only 

 to note the improvement in the agricultural im- 

 plement and automotive field as proof of this 

 statement. 



In an effort to undermine the support and 

 confidence of farmers in the principles of ad- 

 justment, opponents are attempting to con- 

 vince farmers that by reducing production they 

 invite foreign farmers to come into the Amer- 

 ican market and enjoy the results of American 

 farmers' cooperation. Time again will not 

 permit any lengthy discussion of the ques- 

 tion of imports and exports. But there is one 

 phase of our opponents' statements that need 

 answering. Great emphasis is being placed 

 by them upon increasing importation of farm 

 products. 



There has recently appeared in the press 

 a comparison of the value of agricultural im- 

 ports in 1935 with those of 1932. Is this a 

 fair comparison? 



It is true that imports of agricultural prod 

 ucts were at their lowest point in 1932. the 

 total value of these imports being $611,688,- 

 000. 



It is true that the value of agriculture im- 

 ports increased in 1935 to $1,084,414,000. 



But why were imports so low in 1932? 

 \C^as it because of national policy or was it 

 because of the domestic price levels of farm 

 products ? 



How could corn be imported into America 

 in 19J2 over a tariff wall of 25 cents when 



OCTOBER, 1936 



