278 AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



reported that 72 per cent of the wheat coming onto the market was 

 marketed within ninety days after it was harvested. It was hoped that 

 the farmers, through their marketing agencies, would mix, regrade, and 

 condition grain, because these were profitable operations and ones from 

 which the farmers would benefit. The need for a system of unbiased 

 crop reporting, more direct sales, and more efficient use of transportation 

 and warehousing facilities was emphasized. The boards of trade and 

 chambers of commerce came in for serious criticism because they denied 

 membership to cooperatives on the pretext that patronage dividends is- 

 sued by cooperatives were rebates, and congressional legislation granting 

 cooperatives membership in these agencies was accordingly requested. 



The organization that the committee recommended to be established 

 was the United States Grain Growers, Incorporated, a nonstock, nonprofit 

 association made up exclusively of grain growers. Each member had to 

 pay a ten-dollar fee and sign a contract to sell his grain through the 

 national agency for a period of five years. Existing local cooperatives 

 were to be used wherever they were operating, and new ones were to be 

 organized when needed. The United States Grain Growers was to provide 

 the terminal and warehouse facilities, a finance and export corporation, 

 and a market news service. The types of contract to be used were twofold : 

 one between the grower and the local agency, and the other between the 

 local agency and the national body. The members could sell their grain 

 individually through their local association for cash, by consignment 

 to the national agency, or by taking advantage of any of the pooling 

 methods that existed. Penalties were provided for those who failed to 

 deliver their products as provided by the contract; defaulting wheat 

 growers were to be assessed ten cents a bushel, refractory flax growers 

 twenty cents, and other types of producers six cents a bushel. 56 



The greatest dispute centered about the pooling issue. Those who 

 wanted a compulsory pool argued that unless the control of all grain 

 was put into the hands of the sales agency, the benefits would be negli- 

 gible. C. V. Gregory, editor of the Prairie Farmer, was a strong supporter 

 of the compulsory pool, as were the hard-pressed farmers of the agricul- 

 tural Northwest. Its opponents insisted that the general public would 

 react unfavorably to a compulsory pool on the grounds that it would be 



56. Kile, The Farm Bureau Movement, pp. 153-64. 



