AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



materials and it made possible the assumption by England of the industrial 

 leadership of the world. 



But America has been sliding into the submergence of agriculture without 

 design, at least without the conscious wish of the population at large. The issue 

 which has been before the country is whether America should become indus- 

 trialized at the expense of agriculture, whether the farmer should become sub- 

 servient to industry; or, on the other hand, whether agriculture and industry 

 should be permitted to develop equally side by side. For a bitter period it has 

 seemed that the Administration has thrown its influence on the side of in- 

 dustry. It resisted the efforts of the leaders of agriculture to obtain protection. 

 Whereas in England the choice was between removing or retaining an existing 

 protection, in America it is one between granting protection or forcing agricul- 

 ture to do without. The consequence of the latter course inevitably will be the 

 decay of the institution of the individual land-owning farmer, which is the 

 foundation of our economic and political system, and the institution of some- 

 thing akin to peasantry. The trend in that direction has been unmistakable. . . , 42 



Meanwhile, events were rapidly coming to a head in Iowa. The war 

 had all but wrecked agriculture in the state; farm land values had shrunk 

 at least 40 per cent since the ending of hostilities; the farm income was 

 placed at about a billion dollars less; and banks were still feeling the 

 effects of the deflation. Farmers and the business interests alike had 

 started to think more seriously than ever in terms of the farm problem; 

 the bankers, among other things, wanted a greater turnover in land sales, 

 higher prices, and the liquidation of mortgages "acquired in a period of 

 free and easy banking," while militant farm and political leaders insisted 

 that the government give them a free rein in shaping national agricul- 

 tural policies. 43 



On December 21, the Corn Belt Committee in session in Des Moines 

 restated its position in behalf of an export commission "to handle farm 

 surpluses" in order to make the protective tariff effective. Shortly there- 

 after an "all-Iowa conference" called by Iowa bankers gave the impression 

 that not everyone was satisfied with the work of the Corn Belt Com- 

 mittee. Many of the farmers felt that this action of the Iowa bankers had 

 been inspired by the national administration to start a move in accordance 

 with the program outlined by Coolidge before the Farm Bureau con- 



42. Pioneer Press (St. Paul), December 28, 1925. 



43. Eric Englund, "The Dilemma of the Corn Belt," World's Wor\, LIII (No- 

 vember, 1926), p. 48. 



