MCNARY-HAUGEN MOVEMENT 



did not equal the estimates, in which event the farmer will receive upon his 

 scrip what is euphemistically called a dividend, representing the difference. 26 



As expected, opponents of the McNary-Haugen bill called it a calami- 

 tous "price-fixing" scheme that would benefit the nonproducers instead 

 of the farmers. The equalization fee provided for was excessive and would 

 bring about higher living costs; the cooperative movement would be 

 stifled, and agricultural production would be unduly stimulated. These 

 charges were promptly denied by the McNary-Haugenites, who said that 

 the measure was nothing more than an attempt "to restore rights inad- 

 vertently impaired by other legislation." 



When the bill came up for consideration in the House on June 3, it 

 was rejected by a vote of 223 to I53- 27 This vote followed geographic 

 rather than party lines; the West and the Middle West were for it and 

 the East and the South opposed. 28 



Meanwhile, the Republicans had been attempting to pacify the farmers 

 as previously by sponsoring other legislation that was intended to deflect 

 sentiment away from the McNary-Haugen proposal. For instance, in 

 February President Coolidge called the Northwest Agricultural Confer- 

 ence in Washington, which led to the formation of the Agricultural 

 Credit Company to help banks in the Northwest. It was during this con- 

 ference that Coolidge expressed his approval of the Norbeck-Burtness bill, 

 which offered credit to farmers who might wish to diversify their pro- 

 duction. Then on March 7 the President announced that the tariff on 

 wheat would be raised from thirty to forty-two cents per bushel. And in 

 April the Capper-Williams bill, which provided for a farm board to be 

 administered by the government and assisted by advising commodity 

 groups, was introduced. Secretary of Commerce Hoover was said to have 

 a hand in the framing of this bill. 29 



The rejection of the McNary-Haugen bill by the House, and the spon- 

 soring of alternative measures by Republicans, failed to quiet the advocates 

 of "equality for agriculture." J. F. Reed, president of the Minnesota Farm 

 Bureau, an ardent McNary-Haugenite, said of the defeated measure: "It 



26. The Independent, CXII (April 12, 1924), pp. 191-92. 



27. Congressional Digest, III (May, 1924), pp. 267-69. 



28. Black, in American Economic Review, XVIII (September, 1928), pp. 410-11. 



29. Ibid., p. 263. 



