268 



AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



The issue of representation also was a touchy one. The voting strength 

 of the various sections was always taken into account when an important 

 question arose. The Middle West had more members present, but the 

 other states had more votes. After much discussion the question of rep- 

 resentation was settled by allowing one director for each state and an 

 additional director for each additional twenty thousand members. 



Equally delicate was the matter of finances. Those who favored a 

 strong business program sought large fees and a large budget. Illinois, 

 for instance, wanted "a financial program that would insure success." A 

 Kentucky delegate said : "Kentucky is not here to support any penny-wise- 

 and-pound-foolish policy. The national work is of a magnitude and scope 

 that requires money. We do not want any ten cent policy. . . ." Those who 

 wanted an educational organization opposed large fees on the ground 

 that they would be a constant temptation to launch commercial enter- 

 prises. A California delegate declared that too much "vision" and "too 

 much money" wrecked farmer organizations. 



Events came to a climax when it appeared that the Illinois delegates 

 were going to bolt the convention and form a midwestern organization, 

 and a compromise was reached on finances as well as on representation. 

 A temporary organization was also set up with James R. Howard serving 

 as president, and the final plans for launching the organization were 

 deferred until after the ratification meeting of March 3 and 4, I920. 36 



The resolutions adopted by the November convention, though distinctly 

 conservative, were a fair reflection of the attitudes of farmers on issues 

 of state and national policy. The convention declared its "independence 

 of affiliation with any commercial, labor, or industrial organization," and 

 expressed a "cooperative attitude toward all movements promoting the 

 welfare of the American institutions." It was pointed out that farmers' 

 profits came from the "unrestored fertility taken from the soil," from 

 the long hours of labor and the "unpaid labor of women and children," 

 which were "legitimate factors" in determining the cost of production 

 and facts which the nonfarmers had to take into account when they con- 

 sidered agricultural policy. A short-lived endorsement was that farmers 

 were entitled to a just profit based on cost of production. The system 

 of tenancy that was rapidly fastening itself on the farmers of the nation 



36. Kile, The Farm Bureau Movement, pp. 119-20. 



