AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



wise. On May n and 12 a conference of farm leaders was held in Des 

 Moines, Iowa, which led to the formation of the Corn Belt Committee. 

 This conference had been suggested by Milo Reno of the Iowa Farmers' 

 Union and was sponsored by the national body. Twenty-four farm or- 

 ganizations, representing chiefly the corn and hog belt, responded to a 

 call which had as its slogan "cost of production plus a reasonable profit." 37 



Although the convention had been called by the Farmers' Union, it 

 could hardly be interpreted to mean that the responding organizations 

 had accepted the principle of "cost of production." What endorsement, 

 if any, they might have given it was at best of a passive variety, the result 

 of compromise and nothing else. The three planks adopted by the con- 

 ference were not accepted unanimously. They asked for the construction 

 of the farmers' own marketing machinery, including such terminal facili- 

 ties as might be needed; "cost of production" for their crops; and the 

 creation of an export corporation which would buy up the "available" 

 surplus and would be administered by a board of farmers nominated by 

 farm organizations. There were differences of opinion over this last point, 

 and also over the government regulation of marketing and price fixing; 

 these, however, did not obscure the fact that farm organizations had 

 grown tired of farm-relief conventions that were dominated by nonfarm 

 groups and wanted a greater voice in the shaping of farm-relief programs. 



It was evident that three distinct trends had become apparent in the 

 campaign for farm relief: (i) increasing sentiment of the western Middle 

 West in behalf of the McNary-Haugen bill; (2) the growing opposition 

 of the Republican administration to McNary-Haugenism as it turned 

 instead to favor more liberal credit facilities and to sponsor an alternative 

 program of cooperative marketing a worthy long-time policy, but hardly 

 one that would give instant relief; and (3) increasing hostility of farmers 

 to farm-relief conventions that were dominated by bankers, railroad men, 

 lawyers, politicians, and other nonfarming groups. 38 



One of the best evidences of the McNary-Haugenites' opposition to the 

 administration program was the reception that Coolidge received at the 

 annual convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation late in 1925. 



37. Des Moines Register, September 9, 1928; Minnesota Farm Bureau News, 

 June i, 1925; Iowa Farm Bureau Messenger (Waterloo), June, 1925; Farmers' Union 

 Herald (South St. Paul, Minn.), June, 1927. 



38. Farm Market Guide (Minneapolis), June, 1925. 



