394 AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



movement, it was mistaken, because the McNary-Haugenites struck back 

 with even greater force. On July 19 the Corn Belt Committee reassembled 

 in Des Moines and issued warnings to the "industrial bloc of the tariff 

 coddled East" and to the administration by informing both that the fight 

 for agricultural equality was "not over by any means." "Protection for all 

 or protection for none" was the adopted slogan; Secretaries Mellon, 

 Hoover, and Jardine were singled out for censure, and a demand was 

 made to investigate the influences that were at work against placing agri- 

 culture in the protective system. 60 Appreciation was even expressed to 

 the nonfarm groups interested in the farm problem, but a warning was 

 also issued against "any movement of business organizations to initiate an 

 agricultural program independent of farm organizations." 61 Another 

 development in this meeting was the "cost of production" statistics pre- 

 sented by E. E. Kennedy of the Farmers' Union, which were considered 

 altogether too high. 62 



A meeting of the Committee of Twenty-Two, now representing twelve 

 northern states and including businessmen and farmers, adopted pretty 

 much the same resolutions as did the Corn Belt Committee. The day 

 following the Committee of Twenty-Two convention, the Iowa state 

 Republican convention in Des Moines did the anomalous thing of both 

 endorsing Smith W. Brookhart, an insurgent, and "commending and 

 congratulating" the Coolidge administration. Apparently, wrote the Liter- 

 ary Digest, the corn belt farmers insist on relief, "especially tariff relief, 

 but are not ready to leave the Republican Party in order to get it." The 

 Lincoln State Journal said that farm meetings "had the remarkable effect 

 of uniting the extreme wings of the party" in Iowa and elsewhere. Clinton 

 W. Gilbert, writing in the New Yor^ Evening Post, said that the action 

 of the West raises the issue of whether the Republicans may divide, "the 

 West being for a low tariff and the East for a high tariff." Mark Sullivan 

 predicted in the New Yor{ Herald Tribune that "the Administration will 



60. Minnesota Farm Bureau News, August i, 1926. 



61. Englund, in World's WorJ(, LIII (November, 1926), p. 48. See also "The 

 Third Knock-Out for McNary-Haugenism," Literary Digest, XC (July 10, 1926), 

 pp. 5-7. The reactions of midwest farm leaders and newspapers are cited in the 

 latter source. 



62. E. A. Stodyk and C. H. West, The Federal Farm Board (New York, 1930), 

 pp. 29-30. 



