Page Eighteen 



THE I. A. A. RECORD 



ApHl, 1933 



Farm Organizations Reply 

 To Shannon "Investigation 



II 



Issue Open Letter to Congress 

 Exposing Questionable Con- 

 duct of Committee 



An open letter to Congress in re- 

 ply to the report of the so-called 

 Shannon Investigation Committee 

 was recently released by the na- 

 tional farm organizations and co- 

 operatives including the American 

 Farm Bureau Federation, National 

 Grange, National Co-operative 

 Council, National Cooperative Milk 

 Producers Federation, American 

 Cotton Co-operative Association, 

 California Fruit Growers Exchange, 

 Eastern States Farmers Exchange, 

 National Live Stock Marketing As- 

 sociation, Farmers National Grain 

 Corporation, National Wool Mar- 

 keting Corporation, National Fruit 

 and Vegetable Exchange, American 

 Cranberry Exchange, National Pe- 

 can Marketing Association, and Co- 

 operative G. L. F. Exchange. The 

 Shannon committee "investigation" 

 is thought to be a publicity stunt 

 created largely by organized mid- 

 dlemen to spread propaganda 

 against co-operative marketing. 



"We are amazed that a commit- 

 tee of the House of Representatives 

 should expose its lack of apprecia- 

 tion and understanding of farm 

 welfare as completely as does the 

 so-called Shannon Committee in 

 that portion of its report which 

 deals with Farm Board operations," 

 said the letter. 



One From Rural District 



"Apparently four members of the 

 Committee, coming from industrial 

 constituencies and lacking in ag- 

 ricultural information, have been 

 deceived and misled by traders and 

 speculators in farm products. It is 

 noteworthy that the fifth member 

 of the Committee, the only one rep- 

 resenting an agricultural district 

 and having an appreciation of 

 farmers' problems, has filed a 

 vigorous minority report. 



"We respectfully call your atten- 

 tion to the fact that the Commit- 

 tee's review of testimony shows a 

 long string of witnesses representing 

 dealer and speculator interests, and 

 that the Committee either made no 

 effort to secure adequate testimony 

 from cooperatives and their mem- 

 bers, farm organizations and their 

 members, disinterested business 

 men, bankers, economists, etc., or 

 else the Committee has evaded sum- 

 marizing such testimony beyond 

 brief and vague references. 



"The report neglects the testi- 

 mony of farm organization repre- 

 sentatives, but on the other hand, 

 gives much space and emphasis to 

 the opponents. Not only were or- 



ganized agriculture's representa- 

 tives not encouraged to present 

 their views, but when they sought 

 to present them, the committee ma- 

 jority endeavored in its report to 

 discredit their testimony by im- 

 pugning their motives. 



"The Committee's recommenda- 

 tions reveal a distressing bias in 

 favor of a class of private farm 

 product dealers who for generations 

 have assumed that they possessed 

 some sort of inalienable right to 

 buy as cheaply as possible from 

 producers and to sell as dearly as 

 possible to consumers, even though 

 producers desire to reserve to them- 

 selves the right to form their own 

 handling agencies. The Committee's 

 proposals to do away, in a period of 

 great agricultural distress, with any 

 of the advantages now enjoyed by 

 farmers under the Agricultural 

 Marketing Act not only constitute 

 an insidious thrust at rural welfare 

 but, we believe, are also an affront 

 to the intelligence of Congress. . . . 



Against the Co-ops. 



"The Committee apparently would 

 deny cooperative associations' ac- 

 cess to Farm Board credit (except 

 as dealers are also given credit) 

 and thereby prevent their rapid de- 

 velopment in the manner intended 

 by Congress in the Capper-Volstead 

 Act of 1922, the Cooperative Mar- 

 keting Act of 1926 and the Agricul- 

 tural Marketing Act of 1929. The 

 effect would be to subject coopera- 

 tives to all the unconscionable fi- 

 nancial and economic attacks 

 which have characterized the op- 

 position of speculative interests for 

 many years and which were the 

 cause of these Congressional enact- 

 ments. . . . 



"If Farm Board credit is to 

 be denied cooperatives, why 

 should not loans and subsidies be 

 denied to all private business 

 agencies by abolition of the Recon- 

 struction Finance Corporation and 

 by abolition of the preference given 

 industry by the tariff system? Why 

 not deny national banks the sub- 

 sidy involved in the right to issue 

 currency? Why not discontinue the 

 subsidies for the merchant marine, 

 and for aviation? Why not deny 

 publishers their second class mail 

 bonuses under the postal acts? If 

 Congress ever chooses to repeal all 

 such measures of assistance to 

 business men, then we suspect that 

 agriculture will be willing to yield 

 its access to Farm Board credit, 

 but only then. 



"The Committee's proposal to 

 prevent cooperatives from buying 

 any farm products from non-mem- 

 bers appears to be an effort (1) to 

 prevent the enjoyment by farmers 

 who are not cooperative members 

 of some of the advantages of the 

 various federal laws; (2) to pre- 

 vent cooperatives from demonstrat- 

 ing their merchandizing advantages 



Next District Conference 

 At Bloomington May 24 



The Bloomington Co-operative 

 Creamery, collection of dues, and 

 alcohol-gasoline dilution were dis- 

 cussed at the first Farm Bureau 

 conference of the year in the 17th 

 district held at Bloomington, Feb. 

 27. 



The meeting was called and pre- 

 sided over by E. D. Lawrence of 

 McLean county, who represents the 

 district on the I. A. A. board. The 

 next conference will be held May 

 24 at the same place. 



2 1 st District Conference 

 Considers Debts And Taxes 



Tax problems, progress report on 

 Sanitary Milk Producers, member- 

 ship collections, and debt adjust- 

 ment legislation featured the dis- 

 cussion at the 21st I. A. A. district 

 conference held at Taylorville, 

 March 15. Approximately 40 Farm 

 Bureau directors and county ad- 

 visers attended the meeting called 

 by Sam Sorrells of Raymond. 



Discussion was led by W. F. Cool- 

 idge of Macoupin county, Alden 

 Snyder, Montgomery county, Mr. 

 Sorrells, Edwin Bay, Sangamon 

 county, and T. H. Brock, Christian 

 county. 



to non-members in order that such 

 non-members may be encouraged 

 to join as members; and (3) to 

 prevent cooperatives from filling 

 out odd lots of stock by open mar- 

 ket purchases which facillitate ef- 

 ficient merchandising of members' 

 products. The cooperatives are al- 

 ready adequately restricted by fed- 

 eral law with respect to the amount 

 which they may handle for farmers 

 who are not members. 



"The Committee's proposal that 

 cooperatives be subjected to a 'more 

 close and direct supervision' is 

 vague and insidious. What does the 

 Committee mean? Is this proposal 

 an3^hing but subterfuge to hide 

 some scheme of licensing and de- 

 stroying cooperatives? What more 

 supervision can honestly be ex- 

 pected than that to which co- 

 operatives are already subjected? Is 

 the Committee so poorly informed 

 that it does not know the Secre- 

 tary of Agriculture and the At- 

 torney General, under the Capper- 

 Volstead Act, already have full 

 power to prevent cooperative en- 

 terprises from becoming monopolies 

 in restraint of trade or unduly en- 

 hancing prices? Is the Committee 

 ignorant of the fact that the Agri- 

 cultural Marketing Act gives the 

 Farm Board enormous powers to 

 audit and check all cooperative as- 

 sociations to which it renders a 

 loan service?" 



s 



