FARM BOARD TO FARM STRIKE 45 



agriculture, to be sure, was a conspicuous part of the 1928 campaign, but 

 the same could hardly be said about the tariff which had so exasperated 

 the farmers. 



Meanwhile, farmers and their spokesmen had assembled in Washing- 

 ton. Twice thwarted by the Coolidge administration, they met for the dual 

 purpose of drafting what they felt should be essential parts of any farm 

 program and of counteracting the charge that the farmers were at swords' 

 points over relief. Their demands, besides re-emphasizing the need for 

 an effective tariff wall and for surplus-control measures, also sought ways 

 and means to check overproduction and to place in the hands of the 

 farmers the control of whatever marketing machinery was established. 

 Preference was given to the cooperatives already established, of course, as 

 the instrument of control. 2 



Hoover, in his first message to Congress, recited how heavy farm in- 

 debtedness, wasteful marketing methods, rising freight rates, growing 

 foreign competition, overexpansion, shrinking domestic demands, and 

 mounting taxes had contributed materially to the plight of the farmers, 

 and how relief from such conditions could be had through the reorganiza- 

 tion of "the marketing system on sounder and more stable and more 

 economic lines." With his characteristic faith in experts, technicians, and 

 cumbersome terminology, he felt that "the creation of a giant instrumen- 

 tality clothed with sufficient authority and resources . . . would at once 

 transfer the agricultural question from the field of politics into the realm 

 of economics and . . . result in constructive action. . . ." 



It was advised that such an agency had to have finances to build and 

 support marketing associations, to obtain warehousing facilities, and to 

 make advances to cooperating farmers. According to Hoover, it also had 

 to have powers to conduct investigations, to make recommendations to 

 farmers, and to protect itself from "bureaucratic and governmental 

 domination and interference." Likewise, this government agency was to 

 be prohibited from buying, selling, and fixing the price of farm products. 3 

 Obviously, the launching of this program was awaited with great 

 anxiety. It remained to be seen whether the proposed marketing system 

 would bring about relief, whether it would be possible to divorce the 



2. American Farm Bureau Federation Weekly News Letter, April 9, 1929, p. i. 



3. Congressional Digest, VIII (May, 1929), pp. 137-38. 



