wife and every child on a farm who 

 knows anything about the history of co- 

 operation realizes that unless there are 

 ways and means to bring under control 

 the contribution of non-cooperators to 

 excess supplies, the result is a breakdown 

 of the efforts of that great majority who 

 have cooperated. And I submit to this 

 Convention that if America is going to 

 refuse to give to the vast majority of 

 farmers who are cooperatively minded 

 the opportunity to invoke upon the non- 

 cooperator only the force of controlling 

 excess supplies, then we might just as 

 well forget thinking about stabilizing the 

 price levels of farm products in this 

 country for it cannot be done. 



I do not know of any farmer who 

 wants to reduce production, who will 

 subscribe to an economy of scarcity, who 

 will respond to dictatorship. But I think 

 I know that through bitter experience 

 the vast majority of farmers have learned 

 that unless they are permitted, with the 

 support of government, through coof>era- 

 tion to control their own excess supplies, 

 there is little use to talk about coopera- 

 tion. 



I don't know of any farmer who really 

 thinks who wants bonuses and bounties. 

 But the farmer does want a price for that 

 portion of his products that America 

 needs to feed and clothe the people of 

 this nation and for that portion of our 

 supplies needed by foreign nations at 

 fair prices. Farmers accept the respon- 

 sibility of providing these supplies in 

 ample amounts, but they have a right to, 

 and I hope this Convention with a ring- 

 ing note will set forth a refusal to com- 

 promise on their rights to control theii 

 own production and feed their products 

 into the demands of the markets of 

 America at a fair price. 



Only Regiments Surplus 



We hear that this Act regiments farm- 

 ers. And I say again to this audience, 

 and particularly to the newspapers, that 

 there isn't anything from the first page to 

 the last in this Act that authorizes any- 

 where, directly or indirectly, regimenta- 

 tion of farmers in this country or any 

 farmer in this country. (Applause). 

 But it does provide definitely for the 

 regimentation of excess supplies of farm 

 products by the farmers themselves — 

 not by the Secretary of Agriculture. These 

 quotas couldn't go into effect, even 

 though the supplies are excessive and 

 breaking prices. The Secretary has no 

 authorify to put these quotas into effect 

 except after approval in a referendum 

 by two-thirds of the producers interested 

 in the commodity. 



If I were to lay my finger on the weak- 

 est thing in this bill, it would be that 

 very provision, requiring two-thirds. 

 Why not 51%? The people who rule 

 America today and have always ruled it 



"I hope this Convention with a ring- 

 ing note will refuse to compromise 

 farmers rights to control their own 

 production and feed their products 

 into the demands of the marlcets at 

 a fair price/' 



have been selected by a majority vote. 

 Why change that fundamental principle.' 

 The Senate bill definitely provides that 

 a uniform contract shall be presented to 

 all the farmers of America who grow 

 these great basic commodities for market, 

 and wherein there is set forth in bold 

 type, first, what is required of the farm- 

 er, and secondly, the obligation of the 

 government. 



Assures Equality 



One of the most essential things that is 

 set forth in this law is the way and 

 means that the acreages shall be allotted 

 to every farmer in the United States so 

 as to assure equality of treatment be- 

 tween all of them. And if I know any- 

 thing about the attitude of the farmers 

 throughout America, I know that has 

 been one of the most distasteful and un- 

 satisfactory things connected with the Soil 

 Conservation Act — entirely too much 

 latitude given to administrators that has 

 resulted in injustices due to some of the 

 experiences of previous history of pro- 

 duction. And if we are going to have 

 anything like permanency in a law and 

 we are going to think in terms of each 

 farmer controlling his portion of excess 

 supplies, we have got to get right back 

 to the root of any law, of any applied 

 law, and assure any farmer's right under 

 the law to be protected in holding his 

 rightful portion of the market as deter- 

 mined by his base acreage. 



Now the consumer is in this bill, also. 

 The farmers thus far have tried to be 

 fair with all other groups in America. 

 We realize of course the uncertainty of 

 the weather, and no one is smart enough 

 even in Washington to plan that. We 

 don't have to read that in some metro- 

 politan papers. I think the farmers have 

 forgotten more about difficulties of the 

 weather than some of our newspaper 

 writers will ever know. (Applause) . 

 And, therefore, to safeguard America, 

 we have provided for these surpluses un- 



der our control. And we have provided 

 that should there be a shortage like we 

 had in corn in 1936, and the price would 

 get to be 10% in excess of parity level, 

 that immediately the tariff on corn should 

 be reduced so that corn could come into 

 this country at a price only 10% above 

 parity. It also provides that should the 

 price get to be more than 10% below 

 parity, there should be a corresponding 

 increase in the tariff. 



That was in the bill as presented to 

 the Senate by your organization in the 

 interest of stable prices, which would op- 

 erate between the margin of 10% below 

 parity and 10% above parity. Are we 

 not interested as farmers in stable prices? 

 And, may I ask, does not the consumer 

 have more interest in stable prices than 

 does the farmer? Why? I submit to 

 you that when the price of hogs goes up 

 on the Chicago market that the next day 

 the price of pork loins and hams and 

 bacon rises to the consumer. But I sub- 

 mit also that when the price of hogs de- 

 cline, as it has been doing in recent 

 weeks, at great loss to the farmer, it is 

 weeks and sometimes months before that 

 decline is reflected to the consumer. (Ap- 

 plause) . 



Safeguards Consumer 



Another thing is provided to safeguard 

 the consumer. These surpluses that are 

 held back and are under commodity 

 loans, again should the price go above 

 parity, not 10% above, but above parity, 

 the Secretary is specifically authorized to 

 call those loans in a manner that would 

 tend to stabilize the price around parity 

 again in the interest of stable prices. We 

 believe that represents the interest of 

 both the farmers and the consumers. 



In the case of corn, we are told by the 

 Department of Agriculture that under 

 present economic conditions — this was 

 last summer — a crop of 2 billion 380 

 million bushels would find an outlet in 

 the market substantially at parity prices. 

 (Continued on page 23) 



L A. A. RECORD 



