43 AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



ing machinery established by the Board was described as totally inade- 

 quate to meet the surplus problems of the Middle West. 80 



The resolutions adopted by the Iowa Farmers' Union in 1930 amplified 

 the position of Reno. They demanded that the Agricultural Marketing Act 

 be repealed and that the essential features of the equalization fee be put 

 into operation; also that, in view of the paradox that the state college of 

 agriculture and the extension service were encouraging the farmers to 

 raise more products, while the administration was asking them to restrict 

 their production, appropriations to the county agents be withdrawn until 

 "surpluses" had ceased to exist and the farmers were receiving "cost of 

 production plus a reasonable profit." 81 The position of the Iowa Union 

 was that the Farm Board had "not moved fast enough" or "been liberal 

 enough to suit the more radical and militant." 82 



Among the most ardent of Board supporters were the states of the 

 agricultural northwest, particularly North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota, 

 and the adjoining spring wheat country. Their position was rather dif- 

 ficult to support, because these states were among the most bitter 

 denouncers of the Republican party, especially after the second veto of 

 the McNary-Haugen bill. To many this shift was nothing more than 

 opportunism and political jobbery which could not be condoned, but 

 Union leaders in this section defended their position on the grounds that 

 there was no other possible course of action. 83 This group of Union states 

 became very active in the grain-marketing functions of the Board, and 

 also in shaping the policies of the Farmers' National Grain Corporation. 

 The South St. Paul livestock firm also affiliated with the national live- 

 stock-marketing agency established by the Board, thus parting company 

 with the other seven Union houses that denounced the arrangement. 84 



In 1930 the differences within the national Farmers' Union reached a 

 climax with the defeat of C. E. Huff as national president and the eleva- 

 tion of John A. Simpson, a militant opponent of the Farm Board, to the 

 presidency. Among the ten states voting for Huff and the Farm Board 

 were Wisconsin, North Dakota, Minnesota, Missouri, and Kansas; but 



80. Des Moines Tribune, September 17, 18, 1930. 



81. Ibid., September 19, 1930; Iowa Union Farmer (Columbus Junction), October 

 22, 1930. 



82. Farmers' Union Herald (South St. Paul, Minn.), October 6, 1930. 



83. Ibid., November 3, 1930. 84. Ibid., April 6, 1931. 



