NEW DEAL: LATER STAGES 5 2 3 



nually, to say nothing of the higher prices they had gained from the pro- 

 gram. If anything, the big complaint was against the way the program 

 had operated and not against the principle of federal activities. 



Of special interest to the Kansas Republicans was the fact that Senator 

 George McGill, a New Dealer and joint author of the A.A.A. of 1938, 

 "the allegedly distress-spreading law," was up for re-election. His Repub- 

 lican rival was former Governor Clyde Reed, who was shrewd enough 

 not to attack either the New Deal or President Roosevelt too severely. He 

 realized that both the President and the A.A.A. had a certain amount of 

 popular support, and instead chose to speak of the "forward-looking" 

 measures of the administration as proposals that had been first put for- 

 ward by liberal Republicans like himself. 03 



The nearer congressional election time came, the more the A.A.A. was 

 put under fire by the Republicans. Among its critics was none other 

 than Senator Arthur Capper of Kansas, who a few weeks earlier had been 

 defending his vote for it, but who now said that the farmers were worse 

 off than they had been five years ago when the original measure was 

 passed. Wallace, taken aback by Capper's reversal, reminded the senator 

 that he had "helped load the gun" to shoot the farm problem, and re- 

 peated his previous point that the cooperating farmers were better off 

 with the program than without it. This about-face by Capper was ac- 

 cepted by many as a sign that he believed that 1938 was going to be a 

 Republican year. 



Another development in the state was the adoption by the Kansas 

 Farmers' Union of a resolution opposing the A.A.A. as a permanent farm 

 program and asking for the substitution of the domestic allotment plan. 

 This was a price-fixing proposal, not something to be confused with the 

 original A.A.A., as a result of which parity prices would be obtained for 

 the farmers on that portion of the crop that was used in the country. 

 Briefly, the demand was for an American price, or parity, through price 

 fixing. Such a move was hardly unexpected, especially when it came from 

 certain quarters within the Farmers' Union, because price fixing at "cost 

 of production" levels was an often discussed topic. Again, it was interest- 

 ing to note that the Kansas group did not condemn the A.A.A. outright, 

 but asked for a substitute measure. 



53. New Yorf( Times, October 24, 1938. 



