426 AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



Within a short time seven Farmers' Union firms, the Central Cooperative 

 Association, and several others took issue with the National Livestock 

 Marketing Association program. They insisted that control of the as- 

 sociation should be based on the volume handled by the stockholders 

 because that most closely followed "the accepted co-operative principle 

 of 'one man one vote.' " The provision making the National Order Buying 

 Corporation a subsidiary of the National Livestock Marketing Association 

 was acceptable if participation in the order-buying corporation was as- 

 sured to all members of the marketing association. 



These suggestions were submitted to the Farm Board, but there was no 

 reply forthcoming. The protesting groups attended the meeting called in 

 Chicago by the Farm Board; but upon failing to secure amendments in 

 conformity with their protests, they withdrew from the meeting, thus 

 leaving a group of fifteen agencies, mostly of the producers' group, to 

 proceed with the organization of the National Livestock Marketing As- 

 sociation and its two subsidiaries. 



These were incorporated on May 7, 1930. Several days later the by-laws 

 were amended to add four directors-at-large representing the American 

 Farm Bureau Federation, the national Grange, the Farmers' Union, and 

 the American National Livestock Association. Again invitations were 

 extended to active livestock-marketing agencies to Join the National Live- 

 stock Marketing Association, but this and other bids failed to bring the 

 outsiders into the fold. 71 



The dissenting groups met in Omaha on July 22 to launch another 

 national agency, the Farmers' Livestock Marketing Association. Its mem- 

 bers included Farmers' Union houses operating in Chicago, Omaha, 

 Kansas City, St. Joseph, Denver, Sioux City, Wichita, and Sioux Falls; 

 the Central Cooperative of St. Paul; the Farmers' Livestock Commission 

 Company of East St. Louis; and the Missouri Farmers' Livestock Com- 

 mission of Springfield. The general manager of the Central of St. Paul 

 became the general manager of the new agency, which in turn applied 

 to the Farm Board for help and was turned down because it was conducive 

 to inefficient and wasteful methods of marketing. 72 



The Farm Board had a dairy program too, but it could hardly be said 



71. Ibid., pp. 276-95. 



72. Ibid., pp. 321-27. 



