January, 1932 



THE I. A. A. RECORP 



Page Nine 



"» f r 



^ 



'1 "% 



»< I » 



Oi 



>sem 



CERTAIN members of the grain ex- 

 changes who are violently opposed 

 to farmers organizing to market their 

 own products have from time to time 

 blamed the Farm Board and the Grain 

 Stabilization Corporation for low prices 

 of grain "because they have driven the 

 speculator out of the market." 



Let's take a look at this assertion. 

 Speculation in grain is more politely 

 known as future trading. It is true 

 that future trading has declined during 

 the past year. The report of the Grain 

 Futures Administration for the year 

 ended June 30, 1931, reveals that future 

 trading in grain on all of the contract 

 markets combined aggregated 17,034,- 

 201,000 bu. during the last fiscal year. 

 This is the smallest volume since 1924, 

 a striking decline from the 24,999,650,- 

 000 bu. aggregate of 1929-1930. 



The greatest decline in the volume of 

 trading occurred in wheat futures with 

 total sales of 10,063,139,000 bu. This 

 is nearly JO per cent less than the spec- 

 ulation in this grain for the year pre- 

 vious, but exceeds the low record of 

 1923-24 (when the Farm Board and 

 stabilization were out of the picture) 

 by about 38 per cent. "The decrease 

 in volume of trading in wheat," reports 

 Mr. Duvel, chief of the Grain Futures 

 Administration, "was due in part to in- 

 creased speculative»interest in corn as a 

 result of much closer adjustment be- 

 tween supply and demand for corn than 

 for wheat. Stocks of wheat were abun- 

 dant and burdensome, whereas the sup- 

 ply of corn was abnormally short." 



In spite of the substantial drop in 

 futures trading, however, it was less 

 than the decline of trading on the New 

 York Stock Exchange. Speculation in 

 grain dropped 32 per cent, while trad- 

 ing in stocks decHned 38 per cent. In- 

 cidentally, listed stocks dropped far 

 more in price than grain. The middle- 

 men would have us believe the Farm 

 Board and stabilization in wheat and 

 cotton were responsible for that, too. 



Two stories were given wide publicity 

 during the past year by agents of farm- 

 er enemies in the grain trade to under- 

 mine farmers* confidence in co-operative 

 marketing. Both of them are revealed 

 as false by the Grain Futures Ad- 

 ministration report. One which broke 

 on September 23, 1930, concerns a 

 telegram transmitted from Winnipeg to 

 Chicago contained utterly fals€ infor- 

 mation relative to the alleged financial 

 difficulties of the Canadian Wheat Pool. 



United States." On this point it is 

 interesting to note the finding of the 

 Royal Commission on Trading in Grain 

 Futures headed by Sir Josiah Stamp, 

 noted British economist. ;"! ^ ^ ■' V; •' 



Tre Bell System Booth vvhere meRRiiKes 

 from the I. A. A. offices were received. 



Delegates attending the American 

 Farm Bureau convention in Chicago 

 December 7, 8 and 9 were supplied 

 with the latest market news by daily 

 teletypewriter direct from the I. A. A. 

 offices in the Transportation Building 

 to the Sherman Hotel. The news 

 flashes were posted on bulletin boards 

 as fast as they were received. A pri- 

 vate line between the Department of 

 Information and the A. T. & T. booth 

 in the Sherman House was in use eight 

 hours a day throughout the convention. 



Investigation disclosed, continues Mr. 

 Duvel's report, that the telegram was 

 filed by telephone with the Canadian 

 Pacific Telegraph Co. in Winnipeg and 

 dispatched to two futures commission 

 houses in Chicago, and to the Liverpool 

 Corn Exchange. The spurious message, 

 purported to bear the signature of a 

 prominent Winnipeg grain firm, and its 

 contents were disseminated widely over 

 the private telegraph wires of many 

 Chicago commission houses before its 

 spurious character became known. Al- 

 though the authenticity of the telegram 

 was denied before the opening of the 

 market, buying confidence was greatly 

 weakened and the dominant wheat fu- 

 ture declined 2'/2 cents for the day. A 

 reward of $1,000 was offered for the 

 identification of the person who filed 

 the false telegram by the Winnipeg 

 Grain Exchange. 



Said the commission: 



"In some cases at least these new 

 members had already been trading 

 through the Winnipeg exchange, 

 and membership entitled them to 

 receive the benefit of the preferen- 

 tial rates on commission accorded 

 between members in their dealings 

 on the exchange when acting on be- 

 half of one another. The idea that 

 it might be to escape regulation w^as 

 inspired merely by inference from 

 the fact that the list contained the 

 name of a w^ell-known speculaor. 

 It transpired during the conversa- 

 tions that his motives in joining the 

 Winnipeg Exchange were solely for 

 the purpose of entitling him to the 

 lower rates referred to." ; ^ 



All of which indicates that enemies 

 of farmer co-operation will not stop at 

 spreading lies to weaken farmers' faith 

 in their own co-operative institutions. 

 Such opponents have a selfish purpose. 

 They fear that farmers will succeed in 

 doing the job of marketing their own 

 products better and at less cost than 

 under the old system. — E. G. T. 



Our readers will remember that such 

 papers as the Chicago Tribune and Chi- 

 cago Journal of Commerce played up 

 this false information as a blow to co- 

 operative marketing. On another oc- 

 casion the anti-farmer propagandists 

 gave much publicity to the fact that 

 Arthur Cutten, prominent grain trader 

 of Chicago^^ and other bull speculators 

 were joining the Winnipeg Grain Ex- 

 change "because of government inter- 

 ference with future trading in the 



Milk Producers Discuss 

 St. Louis Market Situation 



Approximately 30 to 40 representa- 

 tives of milk bargaining associations in 

 Illinois met at Bloomington Wednesday, 

 December 16, to discuss their mutual 

 problems. J. B. Countiss, dairy mar- 

 keting director, represented the Illinois 

 Agricultural Association. 



Among the managers present were 

 Forrest Fairchild of the McLean County 

 Milk Producers; Wilfred Shaw, Illinois 

 Milk Producers Association, Peoria; and 

 N. E. Armstrong of the Champaign 

 County Milk Producers Association. 

 Harry Blotts represented Decatur Milk 

 Producers; G. E. Dickson, Pure Milk 

 Association, Chicago; Archie McFed- 

 eran, president, and C. Neureuther, the 

 LaSalle-Peru Milk Producers. 



After hearing reports on the various 

 markets, the group discussed the St. 

 Louis situation and the controversy be- 

 tween the Sanitary Milk Producers and 

 the Pevely Dairy Company. It was 

 generally agreed that the bargaining as- 

 sociations and the I. A. A. should render 

 every assistance possible to the organized 

 dairymen of St. Louis in their effort to 

 establish a sound milk marketing plan 

 giving the producer as well as the con- 

 sumers and distributors a voice in the 

 St. Louis market. 



n 



