46 AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



economics from the politics of agriculture, whether farmers could remain 

 free from interference under such a superstructure, and whether the gov- 

 ernment actually would refrain from direct buying, selling, and other 

 price-influencing operations. 



The administration soon discovered that it had a real fight on its hands. 

 Farm leaders and legislators, some Democrats and some Republicans, 

 apparently unwilling to resign themselves to defeat at the hands of the 

 administration, made plans for one last desperate attempt at placing the 

 "export debenture" on the statute books. This was resorted to either with 

 the hope of embarrassing the administration or else in the belief that the 

 debenture plan was preferable to the Hoover proposal. On April 16 Sena- 

 tor McNary announced the drafting of a new bill that provided for a 

 farm board which would have discretionary powers in applying the deben- 

 ture feature. On the same day the House Committee on Agriculture re- 

 ported favorably on the Haugen bill that provided for a farm board with 

 a revolving fund of $500,000,000 but without the debenture plan. This 

 was the big difference between the two measures. By April 18 the question 

 of farm relief was on the floor of both houses. 4 



The sponsoring of the proposal immediately drew a response from 

 Hoover, who called attention to the divisions among the farmers and also 

 to the fact that the Republican platform had made no recommendation 

 for export debentures. He wrote McNary that the debenture plan would 

 bring disaster to the American farmers, but without success. The Senate 

 committee, in an eight to six vote, decided to retain the debenture feature. 

 Senator R. S. Copeland, a New York Democrat, sought to replace it with 

 the equalization fee, as did Congressman Clarence Cannon of Missouri; 

 but on April 25 the House bill was passed without amendment by an 

 overwhelming majority. 5 



In the Senate the debates over the debenture clause continued. Norris 

 of Nebraska, hoping that one of the major administration objections 

 would be removed, introduced an amendment aiming to prevent over- 

 production in the event the debenture plan was adopted. But this was of 

 little help because administration opposition persisted. The Senate was still 



4. United States Daily News, April 17, 19, 24, 1929. The debenture proposal was 

 injected into the farm-relief debates largely through the insistence of the Grange. 



5. Ibid., April 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 1929; Chester H. Gray, "What Muscle Shoals 

 Means to the Farmer," Congressional Digest, IX (May i, 1930), p. 139. 



