NEW DEAL: LATER STAGES 5 2 5 



by election time. The reasoning behind this took a familiar turn. The 

 farmers had grown weary in their campaign for satisfactory markets. 

 If the existing legislation could only be replaced by laws that would di- 

 rect the government to establish prices that would assure the farmers "cost 

 of production plus a reasonable profit," conditions conceivably could im- 

 prove. There was slight hope that the farmers could get profitable returns 

 in a free market where the laws of supply and demand theoretically were 

 allowed to determine price. It was agreed that price fixing ran contrary 

 to "an economic system built on the theory of a free market and com- 

 petition" but the "swing in industry and labor toward greater price regu- 

 lation in recent years [made] it necessary that agriculture have correspond- 

 ing price protection." As proof there was "governmental fixing of public 

 utility rates, minimum wage and maximum hour laws, and the freedom 

 of industry, as a result of concentration in large corporations, to influence 

 the price of its products." The need of price fixing for agricultural prod- 

 ucts was also mandatory because of the many granaries, elevators, and 

 warehouses that were bursting with grains and other commodities. 57 



When the ballots were cast and the votes counted, the results showed 

 that the New Deal had suffered serious setbacks in the farm areas as well 

 as in the urban and industrial sections of the nation. "Probably no New 

 Dealer was more shocked by the election returns than was Mr. Wallace 

 whose farm program had been thrown into confusion by heavy losses of 

 supporting Congressmen in the corn and wheat belts." Wallace pointed 

 out that the losses in Democratic House members were greater in the farm 

 states than they were in the industrial areas, but on a percentage basis the 

 losses in the corn and wheat regions were even greater. He took this as 

 proof that the corn and wheat farmers wanted something positive done 

 to help them, and said that he was open to suggestions for strengthening 

 the program regardless of whether they came from Republicans or 

 Democrats. 58 



It is significant to note that the co-authors of the 1938 farm bill Sena- 

 tors James Pope, Democrat of Idaho, and George McGill of Kansas 

 both met defeat that year. Pope was defeated for renomination and McGill 



57. Milwaukee News Sentinel, November 6, 1938; Milwaukee Journal, November 

 9, 1938. 



58. Christian Science Monitor, November 12, 1938. 



