AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



wheat on the Chicago Board of Trade from $1.18 to $1.20 a bushel, thus 

 narrowing down the margin between it and spring wheat from seven to 

 five cents. The price spread between the two varied widely in different 

 years, depending largely on the protein content and the quality of the 

 crop. As a rule, northern spring was worth from seven to nine cents 

 more, but the difference in 1930 was narrowed down because of the 

 unusually good quality of the winter crop that year. 35 



But the actions of the Farmers' National failed to check the price drops, 

 and on January 17 it stepped up its buying orders in the principal mar- 

 kets, the purchases being made on the basis of the loan values already 

 established. 36 Ardent Board supporters insisted that had it not been for 

 the timely actions of the Farmers' National, wheat prices would have 

 fallen to even lower levels. 37 



The acquiring and storing of wheat aroused further fears of price- 

 depressing effects. Rumors on the Minneapolis market had it that there 

 were between three and four million bushels of wheat held in store there 

 that could be unloaded by the Farmers' National at any time that it 

 chose to do so. The reports also were that line elevators and others were 

 ordering what wheat they had stored at country points to be shipped to 

 the terminal markets as soon as they could load it. 



Still another question was whether the Farmers' National was going 

 to continue its purchases. It was no more obligated to continue buying 

 than were the private mills and operators. 38 The purchases continued, but 

 these also failed to check the price drops. Early in February, after one of 

 the heaviest trading days, prices dropped sharply. 39 



The Board, in making these purchases, again was prompted by the 

 belief that wheat prices were going to advance that spring. Wheat was 

 being stored with the intention of gaining a sufficient volume to exert 

 some influence over prices. This prompted some to claim that the Board, 

 by seeking to control the surplus, was putting into practice the McNary- 

 Haugen idea, except that the losses incurred were shouldered by the 

 government instead of by the farmers. 40 



35. St. Paul Dispatch, January 18, 1930. 



36. Pioneer Press, January 18, 1930. 



37. Ibid., January 30, 1930. 



38. St. Paul Dispatch, February 3, 1930. 



39. Pioneer Press, February 4, 1930. 40. St. Paul Dispatch, February 5, 1930. 



