Going Forward with the AAA 



\^^^^ OR many years organized farm- 

 ^'^];;^^ ers of Illinois have dedicated 



y_J their every constructive effort 

 toward securing for farmers an equitable 

 share of the National income. Since 

 1925 the delegates assembled in Annual 

 Meeting of the Illinois Agricultural 

 Association have rededicated the effort 

 and influence of the organization to this 

 purpose. It is entirely proper that those 

 charged with the responsibility of leader- 

 ship should be asked from time to time 

 for an accounting of the discharge of 

 this great responsibility and obligation. 



It is equally important that the leader- 

 ship of the organization from every 

 county and community in the state be 

 kept fully informed on the progress of 

 these efforts and the obstacles that are 

 constantly arising to delay, if not obstruct, 

 our reaching the goal. 



If we are to maintain a united front 

 as we move forward it is quite essential 

 that the leadership throughout the state 

 take advantage of every opportunity to 

 maintain a fully informed membership. 

 The opposition is taking advantage of 

 every opportunity to divide our ranks, 

 slow up our efforts, and if possible, 

 thwart the realization of our high and de- 

 fensible purpose. Throughout the years 

 farmers have insisted that the farm prob- 

 lem was not and should not be permitted 

 to become a partisan question. But with 

 each election year during the past decade, 

 some of those who occupy positions of 

 leadership in the major parties have ap- 

 peared to put forth every effort to con- 

 sider the farm problem as a "football" 

 of partisan consideration. 



*Excepts from Address Before Farm Bu- 

 reau Leaders at Salem, Sept. 20 and 

 Peoria, Sept. 21. 



By Earl C. Smith 



Recognizing these facts, your organi- 

 zation has been constantly on guard to 

 keep squarely before the political con- 

 ventions of both parties a review of their 

 respective commitments even though 

 some candidates continue to inject the 

 farm problem into the bitterness of 

 partisan debate. 



On numerous occasions I am asked 

 who farmers should vote for in recurring 

 elections. Institutional policies do not 

 permit an answer to these questions but 

 were I permitted to do so, I would say, 

 "Don't vote for those who by word and 

 effort try to inject the farm problem into 

 partisan politics and thereby attempt to 

 divide farmers who can't hope to succeed 

 in soiling the problem except by united 

 action. . . ." 



As early as 1926 organized farmers 

 had succeeded in commanding the at- 

 tention of the nation's business and polit- 

 ical leaders to the seriousness of the farm 

 problem. Efforts to enact the first Mc- 

 Nary-Haugen bill, which provided for 

 exporting crop surpluses and charging 

 the losses against each unit of the com- 

 modity marketed, had failed. In the 

 Presidential campaign of 1924 pledges 

 were made by the three parties. Republi- 

 can, Democratic and Progressive, to sup- 

 port legislation designed to bring about 

 a better balance between agricultural and 

 non-agricultural income. 



You will recall that after his election, 

 President Coolidge appointed a Commis- 

 sion, called the President's Agricultural 

 Conference, to study the farm problem. 

 In Senate Document No. 190, January 

 28, 1925, this Commission in its report 

 said: 



"There must, therefore, be established 

 a balanced American agriculture by 



EARL SMITH SPEAKING AT SALEM 

 "Production control was first advocated 

 by Republican leaders." 



MORE THAN 850 AT SALEM 

 Only two seats in the front row racont 

 Many stood in the rear. 



which production is kept in step with 

 demand of domestic markets and with 

 only such foreign markets as may be 

 profitable." 



This is perhaps the first time the idea 

 of adjusting acreage and production to 

 the demands of markets was advocated 

 by men in positions of power and re- 

 sponsibility in our national life. And note 

 that production control was first advo- 

 cated by an official body appointed in a 

 Republican administration. 



Herbert Hoover, then Secretary of 

 Commerce, and a close adviser of Presi- 

 dent Coolidge gave his blessings to this 

 report when he said in a public statement 

 published widely on February 7, 1925: 

 "Generally, the fundamental need is a 

 balancing of agricultural production to 

 our home demand. That problem is 

 not the farmer's alone. It touches 

 every class. Everyone suffers because 

 of the lack of balance in agriculture." 



Two years later, on February 25, 1927, 

 in his message vetoing the first MrNary- 

 Haugen Bill, President Coolidge said: 



"It (the Bill) runs counter to the 

 principles of conservation which would 

 require us to produce only what can 

 be done at a profit, not to waste our 

 soil and resources producing what is 

 to be sold at a loss to us for the benefit 

 of the foreign consumer." 



Again in his message vetoing the sec- 

 ond McNary-Haugen Bill on May 24, 

 1928, President Coolidge said: 



"The object of my proposal (presum- 

 ably the Curtis-Crisp Bill) is to aid in 

 adjusting production to demand . . . 

 to minimize price fluctuations ... to 

 handle surpluses due to seasonal and 



FARM BUREAU PRESIDENTS AT SALEM 

 The thinking iarmera oi Illinois believe 

 in acreage adjustment and surplus crop 

 control. 



