MCNARY-HAUGEN MOVEMENT 387 



Many delegates there had hoped to hear Coolidge make a complete turn- 

 about and state something favorable about the McNary-Haugen bill, but 

 he did nothing of the sort. He remained consistent with the past by calling 

 the bill a dangerous price-fixing device that would be dominated by the 

 consumer, not the producer, and also be a menace to cooperatives. Coolidge 

 informed the delegates that "the free list in the existing tariff was con- 

 structed especially to favor the farmer," and repeated his often-mentioned 

 formula that cooperative marketing was the most dependable remedy 

 they could find. When he finished, he was given a "cooperative luncheon" 

 consisting of foods that had been cooperatively produced. 39 



The Coolidge speech was too much for the federation, which already 

 had shown its unwavering support of the McNary-Haugen bill. It repu- 

 diated the administration program by defeating national president, O. E. 

 Bradfute, the man who had invited Coolidge to make his coolly received 

 address, and electing in his place Sam H. Thompson, a widely known 

 advocate of the equalization fee principle. 40 



Other evidences of disapproval were found. A poll of newspaper senti- 

 ment found that Republican papers in general were satisfied with the 

 speech of the President, while the Democratic press was especially critical 

 of his statement that "the Republican tariff policy is just the thing for 

 the farmer." 41 



Among the most ardent supporters of the equalization fee were the 

 St. Paul papers, the Pioneer Press and the Dispatch. The Pioneer Press, 

 which claimed that it had assumed the leadership among the metropolitan 

 newspapers in the fight for equality for agriculture, drew parallels be- 

 tween the position of agricultural America and the England of the mid- 

 nineteenth century. When England repealed its Corn Laws it did so 

 because it had decided to become primarily an industrial nation. 



Granting the wisdom of that decision for England, it was intelligent, albeit 

 ruthless, to remove the protection from agriculture. It gave England cheap raw 



39. Literary Digest, LXXXVII (December 19, 1925), pp. 10-11. 



40. The statement of the Minnesota Farm Bureau News, January i, 1926, was 

 typical of the reply that met the Coolidge speech. It said: "His address failed to 

 satisfy the most forward looking proponents of relief to agriculture and in the main 

 failed to touch a responsive chord in the farmers of the nation." See also the Capital 

 Times (Madison, Wis.), December n, 1925. 



41. Literary Digest, LXXXVII (December 19, 1925), pp. 10-11. 



