FARM BOARD TO FARM STRIKE 425 



sociation served notice that it would not come into any national organiza- 

 tion that failed to include all these activities in its program in accordance 

 with the Board plan submitted to the October meeting; and further, there 

 was no specific provisions made for financing. In the end the Board took 

 the matter out of the hands of the organizing committee and reassembled 

 the sixty-six delegates of the October meeting for another consideration 

 of the entire matter. 



At a second conference held in Chicago on February 25 and 26, the 

 Farm Board submitted another plan for organization, including articles 

 of incorporation, by-laws, and controls. The plan submitted to this second 

 conference was pretty much the same as that presented to the first, except 

 that it did provide for the creation of the National Livestock Marketing 

 Association as well as two subsidiary organizations, the National Feeder 

 and Finance Corporation and the National Livestock Publishing As- 

 sociation. 



An important part of the revised plan which led to much debate was 

 the provision for a sales board. Fear was expressed that this plan would 

 "bind all selling agencies to delegate their functions of bargaining on their 

 respective markets to a single central price-determining agency which 

 would . . . instruct them in what markets and in what manner to dispose 

 of the stock entrusted to them." The larger terminal associations pro- 

 tested because there were no provisions made for additional representation 

 for those organizations which had a membership in excess of the 2,500 

 carloads that were required for membership. Apprehensions were ex- 

 pressed both over the Feeder and Finance Corporation because there was 

 no provision for direct loans to the livestock associations at low interest 

 rates and over the feeder pools of the producers associations on the grounds 

 that they were "neither co-operative nor commercially safe." 70 



The plan for the National Livestock Marketing Association was passed 

 by a vote of 38 to 23 and was scheduled to go into effect as soon as two- 

 thirds of the agencies handling livestock cooperatively marketed would 

 formally approve it. There was, however, great opposition and it was 

 believed that the producers' group, and few others, would accept it. But 

 nevertheless on the ratification date, April i, the plan was accepted. 



70. Edwin G. Nourse and Joseph G. Knapp, The Co-Operative Marketing of 

 Uvestoc\ (Washington, 1931), pp. 276-88. 



