April, 1933 



THE I. A. A. RECORD 



Page Nine 



THE complaint of the grain ex- 

 changes for an unrestricted 

 futures market has always seemed 

 to us more an expression of resent- 

 ment by professional speculators 

 against the government keeping an 

 eye on their operations, rather than 

 because of any actual interference 

 with the play of legitimate market 

 factors on prices. 



It may be true that the wolves 

 like to shear the lambs without the 

 government knowing about it, but 

 recent events indicate the ex- 

 changes are not averse to "regula- 

 tion" so long as they can do their 

 own regulating in the interest of 

 the speculators regardless of the 

 effect on the farmer who produces 

 the grain. 



When the grain exchanges 

 opened following the recent na- 

 tional bank holiday, they found it 

 "convenient" to impose restrictions 

 on trading by setting a maximum 

 price advance of five cents on 

 wheat, three cents on corn, and two 

 cents on oats. In other words, the 

 exchanges did the very thing they 

 have continually complained 

 against. 



Farmers weren't consulted, in- 

 cidentally, when the maximum 

 price was established. Only the 

 interests of a lot of "shorts" were 

 protected by the move. The farmers 

 lost by the "restricted" market, for 

 wheat prices the first day of open- 

 ing would have gone considerably 

 higher than the five cent limit. The 

 maximum was reached early and 

 the price stayed there all day. 



At one time, apparently very 

 few trades were made because there 

 were unlimited buying orders but 

 none willing to sell at the "regu- 

 lated" price. The trade has con- 

 tinually complained about the bear- 

 ish influence of the Grain Sta- 

 bilization Corporation, yet at the 

 first sign of an economic revival, 

 the market went ahead in spite of 

 the Stabilization Corporation's 30,- 

 000,000 bushels. All of which is 

 proof that business conditions and 

 low buying power throughout the 

 world are responsible for depressed 

 grain prices, not the Federal Farm 

 Board or the paltry 30,000,000 bu. 

 or less owned by the Stabilization 

 Corporation. 



Do we really have unrestricted 



commodity markets when the ex- 



changes can arbitrarily set the 



?! price, as was done in this case, on 



> the farmers products? When the 



government seeks regulation in the 

 interest of the farmer it appears 

 to be all wrong from the standpoint 

 of the middlemen. But when the 

 latter impose regulations in the in- 

 terest of the speculators, restriction 

 seems to be a blessing. 



The cash grain market advanced 

 steadily during the bank holiday 

 when future trading throughout 

 the United States was dead as a 

 mackerel. So the argument that 

 speculating in grain is an aid to 

 higher prices and necessary to 

 business was not borne out by re- 

 cent exi>erience. The proponents of 

 unlimited future trading never have 

 satisfactorily answered the charge 

 that the tremendous sums collected 

 by grain brokers who take toll from 

 every bushel bought and sold, is a 

 burden on the back of the farmer 

 and consumer. 



To our mind, the biggest hope of 

 the farmer lies not in an unre- 

 stricted or restricted future trading 

 market, but in the development of 

 their own co-operative agencies 

 which not only accumulate profits 

 to the producers' credit, from buy- 

 ing and selling, but also from con- 

 ditioning, mixing, storing, and mar- 

 keting grain at the highest price 

 the world market affords. — E. G. T. 



The Kdsbeer Incident 



THE farmers elevator at Kasbeer 

 in Bureau county on December 

 19, 1932, voted to become a mem- 

 ber of the Illinois Grain Corpora- 

 tion. The board of directors of the 

 elevator appeared to be agreed on 

 the advisability of the action and 

 the manager, Mr. Postlewaite, ex- 

 pressed his willingness, in the 

 presence of Illinois Grain fieldman, 

 to sell through the state regional 

 and Farmers National Grain Cor- 

 poration whenever he could get the 

 price. 



Apparently the opposition heard 

 of the action and sent their workers 

 into the territory spreading false 

 and malicious propaganda. With 

 the help of the manager, these 

 representatives succeeded in stir- 

 ring up a fight among the local 

 grain producers which culminated 

 at a stockholders' meeting at Kas- 

 beer on March 10. 



Previously, it should be men- 

 tioned, the manager attempted to 

 persuade his board of directors to 

 rescind their action in voting to 

 affiliate with the farmer-owned 

 state co-operative. When the board 

 refused, the manager carried the 

 fight to the stockholders. 



The manager is reported to have 

 secured proxies from more than a 

 third of the stockholders and lined 

 up sufficient others to support him, 

 first in electing a new board of 

 directors, and secondly in opposing 



the membership in Illinois Grain 

 Corporation. 



Charles Peavey, who has gone up 

 and down the state for years sing- 

 ing praises of farmers elevators who 

 give their business to old line com- 

 mission men and condemning all 

 efforts at carrying farmer co-op- 

 eration into the terminal markets, 

 was present to read the audit and 

 the manager's report, and shout his 

 disapproval of Illinois Grain Cor- 

 poration and the Farmers National 

 Grain Corporation. The latter in- 

 cidentally have taken a sizable 

 amount of business away from 

 Peavey's friends. 



Spokesmen for Illinois Grain Cor- 

 poration were not allowed to ap- 

 pear until after the manager's 

 hand-picked board of directors had 

 been voted in with the help of the 

 proxies in his pocket, and only then 

 at the insistence of stockholders, 

 who demanded fair play, was O. D. 

 Brissenden, fieldman for Illinois 

 Grain Corporation, introduced. 



A Publicity Stunt 



The fact that the Chicago Jour- 

 nal of Commerce which propagan- 

 dizes for the grain exchanges and 

 other middlemen groups, against 

 farmer co-operation, announced 

 the incident in headlines a few 

 days later as follows: "FARMERS 

 NATIONAL UNIT DEVELOPS RIFT, 

 Kasbeer Farmers Elevator With- 

 draws Completely from Illinois 

 Grain Corporation," indicates that 

 certain grain producers around 

 Kasbeer were used by the grain 

 commission crowd and the local 

 manager to further publicity 

 against Illinois Grain Corporation 

 and Farmers National Grain Cor- 

 poration. 



One elevator, more or less, doesn't 

 make much difference to the Illi- 

 nois Grain Corporation or the 

 Farmers National Grain Corpora- 

 tion. These farmer-owned and 

 farmer - controlled marketing 

 agencies are going concerns, earn- 

 ing dividends every day for intelli- 

 gent producers who are working to- 

 gether for their mutual welfare. 



Illinois Grain Corporation is pay- 

 ing $26,998.75 in patronage divi- 

 dends on business handled in 1932. 

 One central Illinois elevator alone 

 received $1,133.55 of patronage divi- 

 dends in stock; another $941.65 In 

 cash, and this stock today is worth 

 one hundred cents on the dollar. 



Commenting on the Kasbeer 

 meeting, C. P. Cummings, Manager 

 of Illinois Grain Corporation, who 

 was compelled to leave to keep an 

 engagement that evening in Bloom- 

 ington, said: 



"I personally am opposed to our 

 organization doing anything to 

 divide the stockholders of an ele- 

 vator. I would like to have so stated 

 at the Kasbeer meeting had I been 

 given an opportunity. We would 



(Continued on page 12, Col. 2) 



