EDITORIAL 



Some Worthwhile Gains 



r\ i HEN the agricultural history of the strenuous 

 V^yi7 '30s, now drawing to a dose, is written, out- 

 Q J( standing among the gains organized farmers 

 can point to are the 25 per cent reduction in mortgage 

 indebtedness since 1929, the 33 per cent cut in farm real 

 estate taxes, and the 35 per cent reduction in interest pay- 

 ments. 



The Bureau of Agricultural Economics is authority 

 for the statement, supported by the Farm Credit Adminis- 

 tration, that farm mortgage indebtedness in the United 

 States amounted to $7,082,156,000 on Jan. 1, 1938 as 

 against $9,468,526,000 on Jan. 1, 1928, a reduction of 

 25 per cent. Legislation sponsored and supported by the 

 Farm Bureau in state and nation played an important part 

 in easing the farm mortgage burden since 1932. 



Farm real estate taxes in the U. S. averaged 39 cents 

 per acre in 1937 compared with 58 cents per acre in 1929, 

 a reduction of 33 per cent. The Illinois Agricultural As- 

 sociation has continually resisted increases in real estate 

 taxes and has successfully advanced its campaign to reduce 

 and replace property taxes at every opportunity. 



The tremendous reduction of 35 per cent in the farm 

 interest burden, from $563,000,000 in 1929 down to 

 $365,000,000 in 1938 reflects the reduction in mortgage 

 indebtedness and more particularly the fight of the Farm 

 Bureau for lower interest rates. The organization's suc- 

 cessful efforts to maintain the emergency rate of 3 1/4 P^"" 

 cent on federal farm loans for a number of years has had a 

 wide influence in reducing rates on private loans through- 

 out America. 



How St. Louis Does It 



A MOST formidable argument for reasonable 

 ^^^yji milk marketing control is provided by facts, 

 which anyone can check, regarding the sale of 

 milk on the St. Louis market. 



Dealers have contended that a federal milk order at 

 Chicago will necessarily raise the price to the consumer and 

 reduce consumption. They are wrong. Dr. L. J. Norton, 

 professor of agricultural economics at the University of 

 Illinois points out that milk prices have not been reduced 

 to farmers in the St. Louis area even though active price 

 competition has developed in the retail market there. In 

 fact, on April 5, 1939, the Class I price to farmers for 

 fluid milk was increased by 10 cents a hundred pounds, 

 making the price $2.20 per cwt. A workable federal or- 

 der, fixing the minimum price of different classes of milk 

 explains the stable price to farmers. 



And what happened to the consumer's price? Retail 

 prices at St. Louis dropped from 13 cents to 10 cents a 

 quart delivered. Gallons of milk were reduced to 32 cents 

 and half -gallon jugs to 18 cents. Consumption of milk at 

 St. Louis has increased. It gained four per cent from 

 September, 1937, to September, 1938, 11 per cent from 

 May 1938 to May, 1939, and 15 per cent from June 1938 

 to June 1939. Widespread use of gallon and half -gallon 

 jugs and distribution through retail stores made possible 



the lower prices to consumers. And they responded by 

 using more milk. 



Dealers at Chicago and other markets have made it a 

 practice to take it out of the producer whenever a reduc- 

 tion is made to the consumer. At St. Louis they have 

 learned a better and fairer way — more efficient distribu- 

 tion. Had it not been for the Sanitary Milk Producers As- 

 sociation and the federal order there the producers un- 

 doubtedly would have absorbed the cut again. 



The Wage and Hour Issue 



r x^RGANIZED farmers are having a tough battle at 

 ^^^ I Washington to prevent the labor lobby from im- 

 \^ posing minimum wage and maximum hour legisla- 

 tion on the primary handling and packing of farm prod- 

 ucts on or adjacent to the farm. 



When the Wage and Hour law was passed farmers 

 didn't oppose it. Farmers are not opposed to paying good 

 wages in the handling of their products when prices justify. 

 The American Farm Bureau Federation did insist, how- 

 ever, that farming and closely related operations connected 

 with the marketing of farm products be exempted from the 

 operations of the act pendmg such time as parity farm 

 prices are established. 



A study of the debate during consideration of the act 

 makes it clear that it was the intention of congress that the 

 act do not apply to agriculture and closely related opera- 

 tions in the area of production. In the administration of 

 the act, however, the administrator interpreted "area of 

 production " narrowly so as to include many primary han- 

 dling, packing, grading, transporting and similar opera- 

 tions on farm products, within the act. This has had the 

 effect of increasing farmers' costs and reducing their al- 

 ready low returns for farm products. The operations of 

 the act are especially objectionable when there are huge 

 surpluses to market and when prices are below the farm- 

 ers' cost of production. 



Not only did the Labor Committee of the House re- 

 sist efforts of the farm organizations to amend the Wage 

 and Hour Act so as to leave no question about agricultural 

 exemptions (they wouldn't even allow Farm Bureau repre- 

 sentatives to appear before them ) but brought forth amend- 

 ifients which, if adopted, would have resulted in further 

 encroachment in determining the hours and wages for 

 workers employed in industries closely related to agricul- 

 ture. When offering this amendment on the floor of the 

 House, farm organizations presented a united front in 

 opposition thereto, and caused the Chairman of the Com- 

 mittee, to withdraw her amendments. 



The Barden bill now before the House embodies the 

 amendments desired by farmers and is backed by the Amer- 

 ican Farm Bureau Federation as well as other farm groups. 

 So long as farmers are without price protection in the sale 

 of their products; so long as agriculture is at a disadvantage 

 in the exchange of its products for non-agricultural com- 

 modities and services, farmers have no other choice than 

 to oppose all measures that will tend to widen the existing 

 spread. , 



26 



L A. A. RECORD 



