AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 257 



met in Washington to establish a "temple of agriculture" to furnish "the 

 fitting representation of the great foundation industry of agriculture at 

 the nation's capital." Since 1910 was a high-water mark in the campaign 

 of the insurgents against the stalwart Republicans in Washington, it is 

 conceivable that the organization of the Farmers' National Headquarters 

 could have been part of this agitation. Also, one must not overlook the 

 fact that the creation of a national headquarters in Washington was ex- 

 pected to bring about a program based on the demands of the farmers 

 themselves rather than upon those groups who sought to "uplift" the 

 farmers without consulting them. When the American Federation of 

 Labor occupied its Labor Temple, the idea of a temple of agriculture in 

 Washington gained popularity. 



Once the Farmers' National Headquarters was established, an office 

 was opened in Washington and the Farmers' Open Forum became the 

 official paper of the body. Before the United States had entered the war, 

 it had agitated for the establishment of a parcel post system, the direct 

 election of United States senators, and the Federal Farm Loan Act. Dur- 

 ing and after the war, it favored government ownership and operation 

 of the merchant marine, the railroads, and the natural resources of the 

 nation. Obviously, it favored a program that differed radically from that 

 which the American Farm Bureau Federation was to sponsor. 3 



A rival body, the National Board of Farm Organizations, was formally 

 organized in Washington in 1917 to bring unity to the various farm 

 groups, to promote and give publicity to matters of common interest to 

 them, and also to build a "temple of agriculture" at a cost of $1,250,000."* 

 According to one source, this board was expected to function after the 

 fashion of the United States Chamber of Commerce and to be of some 

 service to congressmen who had no good way of gauging farmer opinion. 

 This board also had a program for affirmative action, but it was less 

 militant than that of the Farmers' National Headquarters. It favored an 

 amendment to the Clayton Anti-Trust Act to facilitate the attempts of 

 farmers at "collective bargaining"; it favored the appointment of a prac- 

 tical farmer as secretary of agriculture; and it contemplated some action 

 against government control of food prices. Though its claim would be 



3. James E. Boyle, Agricultural Economics (Philadelphia, 1921), pp. 287-89. 



4. The New International 'Year Boof(, 1919, p. 27. 



