i 



A.A.A. of 1937 



By EARL C. SMITH 



(Continued from page 8) 



a 



do 



if 



rom 



:ivc 

 ted 

 :nts 

 inst 

 ain 

 iti- 

 tis- 

 ike 



Normally we carry over 170 million 

 bushels of com. We tried to be fair 

 enough with the consumer to raise the 

 com quota to 2 billion 500 million bu. 

 before the marketing control program is 

 invoked. But the Senate bill provides 

 that the total shall be 2 billion 618 mil- 

 lion bushels. 



In the case of wheat, we have a market 

 normally for food, export, seed and feed 

 of 685 million bushels. And only if we 

 had 847 million bushels could a refer- 

 endum be called on wheat. 



Now you see here we are providing 

 definite surpluses. But that doesn't mean 

 we couldn't have more in this country 

 than these figures. It does mean, how- 

 ever, that we could ask the farmers of 

 the country, "Are you ready to control 

 those excesses?" We might have more. 



Now, what is the House bill? We 

 have heard a lot about the ever normal 

 granary that has been sold to the farm 

 people of this country. But I want to 

 say to you it is not an ever normal 

 granary that the House bill provides for, 

 it is an «)normal granary before 

 farmers are permitted to get into con- 

 trol of the surplus. The House bill 

 provides for 20 million 900 thousand 

 bales of cotton before the farmers could 

 even have a voice in controlling their 

 excess supplies, more than 3 million bales 

 in excess of our normal market plus our 

 carry-over. Now you cotton farmers had 

 better do a lot of thinking before you 

 subscribe to that figure in the House bill 

 if you want control. 



In the case of corn, instead of 2 bil- 

 lion 618 million bushels as in the Senate 

 bill, it provides for 2 billion 858 million 

 before the com farmers can say whether 

 or not they want to control their excess 

 supplies. 



May I pause just a moment to talk 

 with you folks from the corn belt. This 

 year we have witnessed a price decline 

 that has been one of the most serious in 

 history. How much corn did we have in 

 this nation? According to the latest fig- 

 ures of the Department of Agriculture, 

 the production of 1937 plus the carry- 

 over was 2 billion 720 million bushels. 

 Under this House bill it would require 

 another 130 million bushels before the 

 corn farmer could even have a chance to 

 say whether or not he wanted to control 

 the excess supply. Is that what you 

 want? Some of us are told we are a lit- 

 tle arbitrary or contrary or a little some- 

 thing else. My friends, the issue is this. 

 The Senate bill will permit the farmers, 

 if they want to, to get into control of 

 excesses at reasonable levels. It doesn't 



stop volume. The House bill has subject 

 matter in it but a mechanism that isn't 

 worth a dime until the price has gone 

 clear down below the carpet and the mar- 

 ket has become demoralized. And that is 

 what your organization objects do. It 

 isn't stubbornness to attempt to represent 

 your interests and permit farmers to get 

 in control of their excess supplies before 

 the prices are broken to these extremely 

 low levels. 



In the case of wheat you would have 

 to get. Dr. Wolf (Kansas), up to 1 bil- 

 lion and 50 million bushels before the 

 wheat farmers could even say whether 

 they wanted to control their excess sup- 

 plies. May I say another thing, that with 

 these requirements and normal carry- 

 overs, we have never had a shortage of 

 cotton in the history of the nation, so 

 we are told, we have never had a short- 

 age of wheat. Now why, after all these 

 years, in order to get control of surpluses, 

 should farmers compromise and say, "We 

 have got to have bigger supplies than we 

 have ever had before we can control 

 them?" It just doesn't make sense to 

 some of us. 



Now we have never had but one short- 

 age of corn. And some of you farmers 

 say, "Smith, have you forgotten 1934?" 

 No, I haven't forgotten it. I lived in 

 one of the worst drought areas of the 

 corn belt in 1934. We didn't have a 

 shortage of corn, we had a carrj'-over. 

 We had a lot of low-grade wheat. But 

 we had a shortage in 1936, the only one 

 in history that was serious. But if we 

 have a drought and don't grow anything, 

 with this supply that is referred to in 

 the House bill of 2 billion 858 million, 

 it won't help us so much. 



What about the cost? My, my! We 

 hear so much about the cost. We never 

 hear much about balanced budgets until 

 we go down to Washington with a farm 

 bill and then it becomes essential. And 

 I want to submit to you, while I am not 

 here to criticize any sincere eflFort to re- 

 store America, that we will make the 

 greatest contribution to restoring Amer- 

 ica when we stabilize American agricul- 

 ture on a permanent basis and it will be 

 the most economic expenditure that has 

 ever been asked of our G)ngress. (Ap- 

 plause) . 



What about cost? There isn't one 

 word in this law about subsidy or bounty. 

 It says this, that the Secretary can deter- 

 mine the amount of the ever normal 

 granary but that marketing control goes 

 into effect at those lower figures as pro- 

 vided in the Senate bill to keep the price 

 from breaking. Now what, boiled down. 



does that mean? It means that farmers 

 are willing to produce and provide every- 

 thing America needs and can consume at 

 a fair price, a reserve supply that is the 

 equivalent of the decision and the pleas- 

 ure of the Secretary representing the Fed- 

 eral Government. But it says that the 

 cost of controlling that surplus reserve 

 shall be borne by the Federal Govern- 

 ment, all the folks. Now I submit in 

 all fairness if the farmers are willing in 

 the national interest to protect the con- 

 sumer's interest as well as their own, to 

 provide a surplus reserve supply of these 

 great foods and fibre crops, should not 

 the people who are protected by that 

 production and carry-over pay the cost of 

 keeping that carry-over from breaking 

 the price of all the crop to all the pro- 

 ducers in America ? . . . 



I say in closing that I hope you never 

 in the history of America, and certainly 

 not in this Convention, compromise the 

 two fundamentals in this bill — (1) to 

 bring agriculture into balance and keep 

 it in balance with industry and labor; 

 (2) ask only the American government 

 as representing all the people to pay only 

 the cost of controlling surplus reserves 

 which are here only for the protection of 

 all the people. (Applause as all stood 

 up and sang "Illinois.") 



Henry C. Allen 



Rep. Henry C. Allen, 69, member of 

 the legislature for many years from the 

 35th senatorial district was found dead 

 in bed Dec. 17 at his farm home near 

 Lyndon in Whiteside county. Always the 

 picture of health and 

 looking much younger 

 than his years, Mr. 

 Allen's sudden pass- 

 ing came as a shock 

 to his family and 

 friends. 



Mr. Allen operated 

 a farm on the banks 

 of the Rock River 

 most of his life. He 

 Hewy C. Aikn was a charter member 

 of the Whiteside County Farm Bureau 

 and served on the board of directors dur- 

 ing its early years. After serving for a 

 time on the county board of super\'isors, 

 he was elected to the legislature approxi- 

 mately 15 years ago. 



Highly respected and a man of sound 

 judgment, Mr. Allen could always be re- 

 lied on to vote on the right side of public 

 questions. He attended the Senate com- 

 mittee hearing in Springfield the latter 

 ptirt of October — could always be de- 

 pended upon to represent the interests 

 of agriculture — the dominant industry 

 in his district. Mr. Allen is survived by 

 Mrs. Allen, six sons and daughters and 

 a number of grandchildren. 



JANUARY. 1938 



23 



