AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



money from states that did not have the membership they represented 

 themselves to have ; the fictitious members, he claimed, gave to such states 

 delegates which they did not deserve and increased the vote in support 

 of the incumbents. It was also charged that the national administration 

 promoted dissension by ruthlessly "pushing" into other states with busi- 

 ness enterprises of doubtful cooperative character. 41 



In 1928, C. E. Huff of Kansas was elected president and James O'Shea 

 of Montana, secretary-treasurer; but these results were achieved only after 

 a near revolt by delegates from Oklahoma and Nebraska. The insurgents, 

 according to the Farmers' Union Herald, had demanded majority con- 

 trol of the board of directors, which was denied them. As a result, they 

 remained out of the national Union "until within the last thirty days, 

 when they came back one by one, Nebraska being the last." Two of the 

 states had refused to pay dues unless they obtained three seats on the na- 

 tional board, or majority control. 42 



Obviously, two distinct schools of farm relief had developed within 

 the Union. One group had pinned its faith on the power of the farmers 

 to work themselves out of the agricultural dilemma by encouraging the 

 growth of cooperative marketing and purchasing associations and by 

 seeking what legislation was necessary to insure the cooperatives a free 

 hand. The other group saw the value of cooperatives, yet felt that the 

 ramifications of the farm problem were so gigantic that it would be im- 

 possible to rehabilitate agriculture without federal assistance; the power 

 of the federal government had to be utilized to stabilize farm prices and 

 to protect cooperatives against unfair discrimination. This latter group 

 had its largest following among those who produced staples, the prices of 

 which were greatly affected by world competitive conditions. 43 



As a matter of fact, cooperative marketing and purchasing associations 

 had always occupied a conspicuous role in Farmers' Union activities, and 

 in the earlier years nearly everything else had been subordinated to teach- 

 ing farmers "the business side of farm life." It was then sound Union 

 doctrine that economic wrongs would be corrected through neither "the 



41. Ibid., January 25, 1928. 



42. Des Moines Register, November 23, 1928; Farmers' Union Herald, Novem- 

 ber, 1928. 



43. Oklahoma Union Farmer (Oklahoma City), December i, 1924. 



