Without question, I defend the principles upon 

 which the adjustment efforts in agriculture have 

 been made. I do not believe they alone provide the 

 ultimate and permanent solution of the farm prob- 

 lem. I do maintain, hotvever, that so long as Ameri- 

 can business operates on the basis of adjusting its 

 supply to the demands of markets at profitable 

 prices and so long as American labor controls hours 

 of labor and wages, that American farmers have no 

 other pleasure than to organize, develop, refine and 

 perpetuate the same principles in the operation of 

 their business. 



an over-supply of corn already in the United 

 States had reduced the average price level 

 to 15 cents per bushel? 



How could wheat be imported into Amer- 

 ica and pay a tariflF of 42 cents when the 

 United States already had its elevators full 

 approximating an annual supply even before 

 the harvest of 19}2 and an average price level 

 for the country of 35 cents. 



It is surprising to me that there were any 

 imports at all, but never lose sight of the fact 

 that a substantial portion of the imports of 

 agricultural products consists of things Amer- 

 ican farmers do not and cannot produce. 

 Would it not be fairer to compare the value 

 of imports in 1935 with the value of imports 

 in years when the price levels of commodities 

 were substantially the same? If so, we should 

 compare the average imports of agricultural 

 products in 1929 and 1930 with the imports 

 of 1935 as the average price level of basic 

 agricultural commodities in 1929, 1930 was 

 approximately the same as the price levels 

 of these commodities in 1935. Such a com- 

 parison discloses that the average agricultural 

 imports of the earlier period had a value of 

 $1,500,000,000 compared to a total of agri- 

 cultural imports in 1935 of $1,084,414,000. 



In making this statement, I offer no defense 

 of international policies being pursued by the 

 State Department. I think those policies should 

 be changed in a substantial manner. I make 

 the defense only in answer to those who are 

 attempting to convince farmers that the ad- 

 justment programs in agriculture are resulting 

 in an advantage to the producers of farm prod- 

 ucts of other countries. There is no farmer 

 in the United States more thoroughly con- 

 vinced than I that the American market must 

 be protected and preserved for the American 

 farmer, and I will support every* con.structive 

 means to that end. 



In our review of past experiences, we can- 

 not ignore the decision of the Supreme Court 

 invalidating much of the Agricultural Ad- 

 justment Act. While not in agreement with 

 some important phases of that decision, par- 

 ticularly its declaration that the farm problem 

 is a local and not a national problem and 

 also that the purpose of the Act was to regu- 

 late or regiment farmers, yet as citizens, we 

 recognize and abide by the decision of the 

 court. It was with this attitude of mind that 

 one hundred representatives of American agri- 

 culture assembled in Washington immediately 

 after the Supreme Court decision to decide 

 what should and could be done within the 

 limitations of the decision to protect and to 

 perpetuate the essential embodiments and pur- 

 poses of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. 

 There was a surprising unanimity of opinion, 

 the conference agreeing on a recommendation 

 that resulted in the Soil Conservation Act. 



Can anyone deny the soundness of this 

 law and properly administered being in the 

 general public interest and directed toward 

 national welfare? Certainly as a nation, we 

 are interested in conserving the greatest of 

 all natural resources and assets — soil fertil- 

 ity. Certainly every thinking citizen must 

 recognize the folly of continuing to rob the 

 soil by the production of crops above the de- 

 mands of markets and witness the surpluses 

 of such production breaking the price of re- 

 spective crops to a point that is unprofitable 

 to producers. 



While unqualifiedly defending the principles 

 and purposes of the Agricultural Adjustment 

 Act and Soil Conservation Act, yet I recognize 

 that the initial efforts to administer these laws 

 seem to have been fraught with an unnecessary 

 amount of red tape and complication. There 

 has been entirely too much centralization of 

 authority within the federal government. There 

 has been too much dependence placed upon 

 prehistoric reports of production within our 

 states and their respective subdivisions. There 

 must be and will be simplification of pro- 

 cedure, resulting in more local responsibility 

 to protect and to carry out the purposes of 

 these laws. It is our responsibility as farm- 

 ers to see that this is done. These changes 

 in administration policy will be accomplished 

 to the extent that farmers organize and through 

 constructive organization pave the way for 

 such development. 



In my judgment, one of the greatest mis- 

 takes made in the administration of the Soil 

 Conservation Act has been the emphasis placed 

 upon the depleting acreage bases and the re- 

 duction of such acres on individual farms. 

 With this approach and the continuing pub- 

 licity to encourage the reduction of crops 

 grown thereon, public sentiment — especially 

 in our cities — has recognized this law as 

 intended to plow under or destroy food and 

 fiber. I believe it would be much more con- 

 structive and certainly more defensible to 

 place greater emphasis upon the soil conserv- 

 ing base of the farmer, to offer reasonable 

 compensation for the maintenance of such 

 conserving base, and more substantial com- 

 pensation for the increased planting of gen- 

 uine soil conservation crops. It would be 

 comparatively ea.sy to convince the thinking 

 public that substantial costs are involved in 

 the treatment of land for the successful grow- 

 ing of real soil conservation crops, such as 

 alfalfa, sweet clover, etc. and that reason- 

 able compensation therefor was justified. The 

 public having a continued interest in the 

 preservation of soil fertility could more easily 

 be brought to recognize that such a program 

 is in the national interest. 



It is my deep conviction that the two big 

 problems confronting America are its farm 



and unemployment problems. During the 

 years of their consideration, there has devel- 

 oped two general philosophies or thoughts in 

 approaching their solution. One group holds 

 that to the extent industry is successful in 

 stimulating its activity, employment will in- 

 crease, resulting in greater demand for farm 

 products and natural stimulation in the price 

 of farm products. I have never subscribed 

 to this viewpoint. I have an abiding con- 

 viction that the unemployment of labor during 

 recent years was the direct result of a steadily 

 declining income of farmers since 1920. For 

 a few years, farmers drew upon their savings 

 of more prosperous years; later, they used 

 their credit until exhausted and with the 

 lowest income of the present generation, their 

 buying power was destroyed. 



We are spending billions annually to as- 

 sist the unemployed. I have no fault to find 

 with any reasonable effort made by govern- 

 ment to assist deserving people who because 

 of no fault of their own find themselves with- 

 out employment. But I believe that when 

 proper and full attention of the nation is 

 focused upon the farm problem, we will find 

 that by placing a small portion of the tre- 

 mendous sums being spent directly to meet the 

 unemployment problem into the solution of 

 the farm problem, the increased buying power 

 of farmers resulting from such an attitude of 

 government will go further to meet the un- 

 employment problem in a constructive way 

 than all efforts now being made through tem- 

 porary projects of government. 



Why should farmers, who constitute from 

 25 to 28 per cent of the population be sat- 

 isfied to continue with eight or 10 per cent 

 of the national income? We have never wit- 

 nessed a greater era of prosperity in America 

 than during the years when farmers had their 

 largest percentage share of the national in- 

 come. Are farmers willing to admit that as 

 a class they do not represent at least the aver- 

 age of American citizenship? If we as a 

 group do constitute at least an average of 

 American standards of thinking and living, of 

 support to our government, of holding to the 

 ideals of representative government, why 

 should we not more aggressively demand until 

 we receive a fair and equitable share of the 

 national income for perpetuating the greatest 

 industry of the country — American agricul- 

 ture? I believe this will be accomplished 

 just to the extent farmers organize and through 

 their organization constructively and mili- 



tantly 

 necessary 



Lookii 

 ditions 

 were fro 

 time sui 

 in the el 

 nation, 

 are a th 

 carry ou 

 gram. ' 

 justment 

 at that 

 ward. 



ACE SOFTBALL TWIRLERS 



Their pitching brought Peoria Victory. 

 "Screwball" Johnson, left, and teammate. 



32 



L A. A. RECORD 



