in some of our neighboring states, there will 

 be those who will make an effort to place 

 the AAA of 1938 before the voters of this 

 state as a partisan issue. It cannot justly and 

 should not be so considered. / cannot too 

 strongly urge that candidates jar of ice he 

 supported or rejected by farmers regardless of 

 party affiliation, according to their ability, 

 past performance, understanding and voting 

 records on questions of vital interest to 

 farmers. . . . 



I believe the time has come for farmers 

 to show more aggressiveness in putting the 

 opponents of our basic farm program on the 

 defensive. Have we forgotten the opposition 

 we as organized farmers have been forced to 

 meet throughout the past ten years? Have we 

 forgotten that in each election year during this 

 period there has arisen like a mushroom some 

 so-called farm organization which when later 

 exposed was found to be supported by about 

 the same group of opponents that we have 

 been forced to meet throughout the years. 



Let us pause for a moment and read the 

 roll of these publicity-seeking organizations, 

 none of which, to my knowledge, is in 

 existence today: 



Where Are They Now? 



National League for Economic Stabilization. 

 otherwise known as the Clair Plan. For 

 market control through the proration of the 

 domestic market among producers, and pro- 

 vided for minimum price stabilization. 

 Active in 1932. 



National Producers Alliance. Active in 

 1931 signing up farmers to fix the price 

 of staple agricultural products. 

 United Farmers League. A society whose 

 purpose was apparently to inject revolution- 

 ary and radical principles into existing farm 

 organization. 



Federation of American Business. This or- 

 ganization was active in 1931 and 1932 

 spreading propaganda against farm organi- 

 zations, farm cooperatives and the Federal 

 Farm Board. It was supported by livestock 

 and grain exchange interests. 

 Federated Agricultural Trades of America. 

 A propaganda agency made up, as its name 

 propaganda agency made up, as its name 

 implies, of middlemen, commodity exchanges 

 and processors to oppose cooperative market- 

 . ing and the Federal Farm Board. Ceased 

 operations after election of 1932. 

 Farmer's Holiday Association. Attempted 

 to call a national strike and to raise farm 

 prices by blocking the roads and shutting 

 off delivery of farm products to the term- 

 inal markets. 



Farmers' Protective Association. Headed by 

 Dr. Collier, a central Illinois veterinarian 

 whose purpose was reported to be to put the 

 Farm Bureau out of business and pay off all 

 the farm mortgages of the state with Farm 

 Bureau dues. 



Farmer's Independence Council of America. 

 Headed by Dan Casement of Kansas, a one- 

 time candidate for Congress, and Stanley 

 Morse of South Orolina. Active in 1934- 

 '36, attempting to divide farmers and turn 

 them against surplus control program. Testi- 

 mony before a Senate Committee reveals 

 that it received financial support from the 

 so-called American Liberty League, Died 

 after 1936 election. 



You are acquainted with the 1938 effort 

 to organize farmers against the AAA of 1938. 

 These efforts are destined to go the way of 

 others after the November election. 



These are organized examples of how easy 

 it is to criticise and how comparatively dif- 

 ficult it is to propose a sound remedy to the 

 agricultural problem. I would not give rec- 

 ognition to any of these efforts of the opposi- 



OCTOBER. 1938 



tion but for the fact that unless we discharge 

 our responsibility as leaders, many farmers 

 in the absence of full and correct information 

 will become the dupes of such organized 

 propaganda. 



I sincerely believe that the one thing that 

 stands in the way of complete demoralization 

 of basic farm crop prices such as was ex- 

 perienced in 1931 to 1933 is the AAA pro- 

 gram. With its opportunities through crop 

 loans and acreage adjustment to keep sur- 

 pluses under control, this legislation lias 

 more influence today in preventing a return of 

 35-cent wheat, 15-cent corn, and $3.00 hogs 

 than all other factors combined. 



What would Secretary Hyde, Chairman 

 Legge, the Farm Board and all of us have 

 given for this enabling legislation back in 

 1930, 1931 and 1932 when mounting crop 

 surpluses started farm prices downward to 

 the lowest level in 60 years, bankrupting 

 farmers, drying up farm buying power, 

 wrecking banks, closing factories, throwing 

 workmen into breadlines, even threatening the 

 country with riots and revolution. 



The able men who constituted the Farm 

 Board saw the problem, realized the need for 

 acreage adjustment, but without legislative 

 authority for bringing it about were powerless 

 to stave off defeat. . . . 



If Congress would suddenly repeal the AAA 

 of 1938 call off the commodity loans, destroy 

 the announced plan for acreage adjustment of 

 cotton, wheat and corn in the 1 938-' 39 crop 

 year, in my opinion you would see much more 

 serious decline and demoralization of farm 

 prices than we have thus far witnessed. I; 

 is no secret that in the grain exchanges and 

 other commodity markets of the country, 

 speculators on the bear side of the market 

 are afraid to go further in efforts to force 

 down prices of wheat, corn and cotton be- 

 cause of available loans and the potential 

 adjustment of acreage to market demands next 

 year. 



It is true that farm prices are not at fair 

 or satisfactory levels but before criticising the 

 act for this condition, should we not look for 

 the real causes rather than jump at conclu- 

 sions? The Agricultural Adjustment Act be- 

 came law m February of this year. Certainly 

 its adjustment features could have no effect 

 on supplies of commodities planted in 1937 

 and harvested in 1938, such as wheat. The 

 tremendous increase in the carry-over of corn 

 from the 1937 crop (also resulting from a 

 year in which no adjustment program was in 

 effect) could not be offset by sufficient re- 

 duction in the year 1938 and is therefore 

 having great effect upon price levels. 



What Cut Com Price? 



With only a normal carry-over from 1937, 

 the estimated corn crop of 1938 would not 

 present a serious problem. Even with the 

 lar^e carry-over, had all farmers taken ad- 

 vantage of their opportunities and made proper 

 adjustments in production, corn farmers could 

 look forward to much larger total returns from 

 this year's crop than can now be expected and 

 also, the potential danger to the future hog 

 market would have been lessened. 



/ can reach no other conclusion than that 

 the present comparatively low price of corn 

 is the natural result of not having any adjust- 

 ment program for corn and wheat in 1937, 

 coupled with the failure of about }0 per cent 

 of the corn producers to cooperate and m^ke 

 adjustments in 1938. Even under present con- 

 ditions, cooperators are assured of being well 

 compensated for their efforts. They are r.s- 

 sured of a 10c per bushel adjustment payment, 

 which, coupled with the 57c per bushel corn 

 loans available only to them, they can feel 



assured their crop will have a value of ap- 

 proximately 67c per bushel. 



When have farmers witnessed a price re- 

 lationship between the open market for wheat, 

 and the value of corn owned by the adjustment 

 cooperator such as exists today? 



Without this program and without coopera- 

 tion, the potential crop and carry-over totaling 

 approximately 2,860,000,000 bushels would 

 undoubtedly break the market price to as low, 

 if not lower, than 35c per bushel. . . . 



A year ago we heard a great deal about a 

 so-called scarcit)' program and the huge im- 

 ports of corn, beef, pork and other products 

 the AAA was encouraging. What has hap- 

 pened to all that propaganda? The facts are 

 that the drouth of 1936 cut our corn yield 

 down to one of the three lowest crops in 

 38 years — a little more than a billion and a 

 half bushels. There was not enough corn to 

 go around and feed our livestock, so in the 

 emergency we imported some from the Argen- 

 tine. No corn came in, however, until the 

 domestic price exceeded 92c per bushel. Im- 

 mediately with the coming of the 1937 crop, 

 prices declined and when reaching 75c in the 

 central markets of the country, corn imports 

 were a thing of the past. 



We have heard little from the opponents of 

 the AAA of the export and import relations 

 of corn during 1938. If those interested in this 

 question want to be fair they would be talking 

 about the fact that much more American corn 

 was exported during 1938 than was imported 

 in 1937. 



Corn exports from Oct. 1, 1937 to Sept. 3. 

 1938 total 126,000.000 bu. It is estimated 

 that bv the end of this month when the fisca! 

 year closes, exports of corn will total 135,000,- 

 000 bu. . . . 



Exports and Imports 



The question of exports and imports is 

 pretty largely a matter of price levels and 

 credit. Only recently there appeared in the 

 press a statement quoting an active candidate 

 for office in which he made comparisons of 

 imported farm products during 1937 to that 

 of 1932. Great emphasis was placed upon 

 the percentage increase in 1937 over that of 

 1932. Such comparisons disclose cither com- 

 plete lack of informaiton or an intention to 

 deceive. There are few farmers but who realize 

 that with an average price level of 22c for 

 corn in 1932, no corn would be imported over 

 a 25c tariff wall, while during 1937 domestic 

 corn prices were far above parity and generally- 

 above $1.00 per bushel. Approximately the 

 same price relationship of other basic farm 

 commodities existed during these respective 

 years. 



This type of opposition and propaganda will 

 not go far ■with thinking farmers. Some of the 

 opposition seem greatly concerned for fear 

 free speech and free press will be curbed. 

 In my opinion, the only danger confronting 

 free speech and free press is the manner in 

 which some of the metropolitan newspapers 

 operating under the protection of free speech 

 and free press distort and misrepresent the 

 truth of the farm problem and other basic 

 issues with which this nation is confronted. . . 



As I see it, national prosperity depends 

 upon a contented prosperous agriculture. It- 

 appears to be impossible to turn the bountiful 

 production plant of agriculture loose and at 

 the same time expect anything but low prices 

 resulting from excessive production. This 

 being the case a great national responsibility 

 exists for the solution of the agricultural 

 problem. Its sound solution is of interest to 

 every man, woman and child in this nation. 

 Either the farm problem will be solved 

 through the voluntary action of farmers work- 

 (Continued on page 26) 



^1 



