Legislation Affecting Farmers' 

 Interests in tlie 61st General 



Assembly 



£ TOTAL of 474 bills were 



J lL passed by the 6 1st General 



^"^-^ / Assembly which adjourned 

 sine die on June 30, out of the total 

 of 1759 bills introduced during the 

 session. A majority of these bills di- 

 rectly or indirectly aflFected agriculture 

 and farmers but this report necessarily 

 will deal only with those measures of 

 most importance and interest. Except 

 for the loss of the State Milk Control 

 Bill, the legislation sponsored by the 

 Illinois Agricultural Association, on the 

 whole, fared well. Most of such bills 

 were passed and the Association was 

 successful in defeating a number of ob- 

 jectionable measures. 



'■^ 



Milk Control 



The State Milk Control Bill (H.B. 

 483, introduced by Representatives 

 Hunter, Bolger, Collins, Dillinger, Fid- 

 ler, Friedland, Johnson, McGaughey 

 and White), sponsored by the organ- 

 ized milk producers and supported by 

 your Association, was one of the most 

 important agricultural measures consid- 

 ered. This bill failed to pass. The bill 

 would have created a state milk mar- 

 keting board consisting of an equal 

 number of producer and dealer repre- 

 sentatives, with the Director of Agri- 

 culture as an ex-officio member and 

 chairman. It would have required all 

 milk dealers handling fluid milk to 

 secure a license and to show their 

 financial ability to pay producers for 

 a two-months' supply of milk or to 



- <a--.. 



give bond guaranteeing payment to 

 producers. It would have required 

 milk dealers to keep accounts and rec- 

 ords and have given the State board 

 authority to audit these accounts for 

 the purpose of determining whether 

 proper payments were being made to 

 producers. The board would have had 

 authority to fix minimum prices to be 

 paid producers for milk when such 

 prices were approved by two-thirds of 

 the producers supplying the market. 

 Likewise, the board would have been 

 authorized to fix resale prices for a 

 period of not exceeding 60 days in 

 any year in any market with the ap- 

 proval of two-thirds of the producers 

 in the market. The bill was for a 

 temporary experimental period of two 

 years expiring on June 30, 1941. It 

 was reported favorably by the House 

 Committee on Agriculture and was con- 

 sidered on three different occasions by 

 the entire House in Committee of the 

 Whole. 



Fluid milk producers are put to 

 considerable additional expense and 

 higher production costs in meeting the 

 rigid sanitary requirements of city 

 health ordinances. For this reason, 

 they are fully justified in demanding 



(Continued from page 4) 



farmers shoufd file this issue of the RECORD for future reference and at 

 the next opportunity to record their wishes at the polls, be guided in their 

 voting by the attitude and record of those seeking positions of legislative 

 responsibility and by the manner in which they have given honest service 

 to their farmer constituents. 



Farmers are gradually becoming a smaller minority of the total voting 

 population. It becomes increasingly necessary that they strengthen their or- 

 ganization, study more closely the many public policy questions before 

 the people and present a united front in returning to legislative halls of 

 state and nation those who by their records and services have proven them- 

 selves entitled to farmer support. 



state assistance in securing a reasonable 

 premium over butterfat and condensery 

 prices and the protection of state li- 

 censing and bonding of dealers. 



The adverse report of a special in- 

 vestigating committee appointed by the 

 Lieutenant-Governor, of which Doctor 

 H. A. Ruehe, Chief of the Dairy De- 

 partment, University of Illinois, was 

 chairman, was an important factor in 

 the defeat of the bill. This committee, 

 after a one week's study of milk control 

 in eastern markets and few days in 

 Indiana and Wisconsin, reported 

 against milk control. There is a definite 

 feeling among milk producer repre- 

 sentatives that either sufficient timt 

 was not taken for the investigation, or 

 the committee was not impartial and 

 unbiased. The committee's report, par- 

 ticularly as to the effect of milk con- 

 trol legislation in Indiana and Wis- 

 consin, was in direct conflict with in- 

 formation furnished by the officials of 

 those States. Governor Townsend of 

 Indiana reported to President Earl C. 

 Smith that under the Indiana milk con- 

 trol law, producers were receiving more 

 for their milk than the average of 

 1930 to 1935 prices and consumers were 

 paying less. He pointed out that while 

 only 20 areas in the state were un- 

 der milk orders, other markets had 

 been stabilized voluntarily because of 

 the possibility of the act being applied. 

 He further reported : 



"Our Act was re-enaaed in 1937 

 and 1939 by substantial majorities 

 in both Houses. The program has 

 the support of all agricultural or- 

 ganizations of the State and I con- 

 sider it an excellent piece of leg- 

 islation covering a business en- 

 dowed with public interest." 



After the bill had been considered 

 by the Committee of the Whole, con- 

 sisting of all the members of the House, 

 on three different occasions, it was 

 called for passage. A motion was made 

 to send it to the Appropriations Com- 

 mittee. Sponsors of the bill moved 

 to suspend the rules and consider it 

 without reference to the Appropriations 

 Committee. On this motion 60 mem- 

 bers of the House, including 25 mem- 

 bers from downstate, voted against sus- 



AUGUST. 1939 



