THE FARM BLOC, 1920-23 325 



The resolutions that were passed in the annual sessions of the American 

 Farm Bureau Federation, which were drawn up from the results of polls 

 that were conducted by Silver, helped to keep close ties between the farm- 

 ers and the bloc. 



On the offensive these agricultural spokesmen were especially potent. 

 Between July 5 and August 25, when the special session finally adjourned, 

 five measures were passed that were of direct interest to agriculture. 

 These included a packer-control bill, the Futures Trading Act, legislation 

 lengthening the life of the War Finance Corporation in order to help 

 farmers find foreign markets, and two acts relating to the Federal Farm 

 Loan System which increased the capital of the board and the interest 

 rate on farm loan bonds to 5^ per cent. 13 These measures bore out the 

 convictions of one observer who said that the farm bloc "is aggressive 

 and cohesive and knows precisely what it wants and how to get it." 1 



A prime goal on the farm-bloc agenda was legislation to regulate the 

 packers and the stockyards. Agitation for legislation of this type had 

 been waged for some years and had grown out of the low prices that the 

 livestock growers had received for their animals. The meat packers had 

 also incurred the wrath of consumers, who charged that they paid too 

 much for their meat, but the truth of the matter is that the demand for 

 regulation had come mostly from the producers, who complained of low 

 and fluctuating prices. 15 



A feeling of distrust toward the meat packers had grown with the out- 

 break of the European war and the rising cost of living. The farmers in 

 particular felt that they were denied a just price. Hence in 1915 a con- 

 ference was called in Chicago to help bring about an understanding 

 between the industry and the livestock growers. Livestock men, packers, 

 wholesalers, and retailers were represented. The meat packers, unfor- 

 tunately, were not there in person. Instead there was an agent representing 

 them who did much listening and very little talking. This the producers 

 took as a slight, because they had come there with the full expectation 

 that the meat packers would appear in person to explain why livestock 

 prices had not risen as they had expected. 



13. Bradley in Journal of Social Forces, III (May, 1925), pp. 715-16. 



14. Literary Digest, LXXI (December 24, 1921), p. 102. 



15. "A Bill to Make the Packers Be Good," Literary Digest, LXVIII (February 

 5, 1921), pp. 10-11. 



