The RURAL, NEW-YORKER 
913 
Hoover and His Relation to Agriculture 
Wo lmvo had many letters from readers about Mr. 
Hoover as a candidate for President Some corre¬ 
spondents are enthusiastically for him, while others 
are strongly opposed to him. We cannot possibly 
print all the letters, but the following state clearly 
the arguments from an agricultural standpoint Both 
men were connected with the Food Administration, 
and both met Mr. Hoover personally and had a good 
chance to study (he man. 
WHY I FAVOR MR. HOOVER 
From the contact I had with Mr. Hoover as a member 
of the National Agricultural Advisory Committee. I had 
the highest admiration for him. I believed that, he was 
absolutely sincere and was trying to do what he thought 
was best for the interests of the country. I also be¬ 
lieved that it. was his sincere purpose to do nothing 
which would be detrimental to the interests of agricul¬ 
ture. 
Later on T entered the Food Administration, and 
some things came under my observation which caused 
me to have periods of doubt. From my point of view, 
some of the things which I saw contemplated would, in 
my opinion, have been very detrimental to agriculture, 
and seemed to me somewhat shortsighted. I have, how¬ 
ever. tried to imagine myself in Mr. Hoover’s position 
as Food Administrator at a critical time, and I do not 
know that I would have done any different from what 
he did. 
Tn The R. N.-Y. in the Summer of 1017 there was 
published an extract from a speech made by Mr. Hoover 
to the agricultural editors, which reads as follows: 
“During the past 25 or 20 years we have had an 
undue migration from the farms to the towns. That 
migration has been founded on the basic economic fact 
that agriculture has been less profitable than industry. 
In fact, a large part of our agricultural production has 
been based on sweated labor. There have been other 
contributing causes; the depletion of virgin soil and lack 
of knowledge and experience in its refertilization. Even 
if ihis war had not come , we were in a fete years due 
jar an economic revolution ; for our productive capacity 
in foodstuffs has fallen behind our productive capacity 
in industry. The war has precipitated this question 
upon us; for with the reduced consuming power of the 
world’s population, due to the destruction of property 
and life, we shall have after the war less demand upon 
industry, and industry will have become less profitable ; 
but, fin account, of the destruction of animals and ex¬ 
haustion of soil in Europe, there will be no diminution in 
the demand for food. Therefore , if I interpret the signs 
correctly, the farmer is coming into his day and it is the 
duty of all of us to support him." 
I have never seen any better statement, of the trouble 
with agriculture than this. Now, assuming that a large 
part of our agricultural production up to the outbreak 
of the war had been based on sweated labor, as Air. 
Hoover stated, the outbreak of the war produced imme¬ 
diately. a situation which made it possible to increase 
the price of agricultural commodities to a level which 
would yield to the producers of these commodities cost 
plus a reasonable profit, because the European belliger¬ 
ents, through shortage of ships, were cut off from dis¬ 
tant sources of supply, and a supply of food from (lie 
nearest possible sources must be obtained if the war 
was to be won. It js entirely possible that wheat prices 
would have been $5 ami even $10 per bushel in 3017, 
and prices of other agricultural commodities might have 
been in proportion. However, any such readjustment 
of agricultural prices made within a few months would 
have caused great hardships to the consuming public, 
pending readjustment, of wages; strikes would have been 
numerous, and when we needed every ounce of energy 
to prosecute the war with Germany, we should un¬ 
doubtedly have had an industrial war here at home, 
which would have caused a great deal of trouble. 
I do not believe that Air. Hoover believed in price- 
fixing, and I think that price control was as repugnant 
to him as it was to anyone, but I believe that ho felt 
the situation demanded that something be done, and I 
think he tried to do it with as little hardship to the 
farmers as possible. As soon as the armistice was 
signed he set about demobilizing the Food Administra¬ 
tion. and I think it was his policy to get out of food 
control just as soon as possible, and let prices reach 
their level on the basis of supply and demand. 
Now I know that it may be argued with justice that 
alter the farmers had raised the 31)17 crop of wheat with 
he expectation that its price would be established by 
the laws of supply and demand, that to take it over at 
a price fixed by a commission instructed to determine 
what would be a fair price on the basis of cost of pro¬ 
duction, which price was more than $1 per bushel less 
han future wheat had always sold for on the grain ex¬ 
changes, seems somewhat unjust, and that it was equiv¬ 
alent to taking out of the pockets of the farmers a large 
sum of money which possibly it would have been more 
just to have taken out of the pockets of all the people 
through the Treasury of the United States. Yet at the 
same time, when a war of national life and death is 
icing waged, which if it went against us. might menu 
rue Joss of our property and our institutions, it is a 
luestion il the farmers are not better off with the course 
pursuei than they would have been had another course 
leen taken. I am rather inclined to think that they are. 
i . 1 . 0 ,, ‘ r * st ow the more I feel that every time we 
(< J ! * resident the institutions of our country are 
(mewhat mi trial. Therefore, it means much for us to 
i' 1 '* ,!. n: . ,n "'ho has demonstrated his ability to handle 
■ ge an airs and who has a sincere purpose which will 
•id turn to do what he thinks is right. I believe we 
m ine " m , an iu Mr. Hoover, and for this reason I 
' iiHi in . K A° ^°. rget s 'xne of the things which jarred me 
, al tl " 1 ' Bme, in the belief that the things he did 
! wor.' detrimental to the farmers anil seemed nti- 
tlimiiri'.f •, 111 wm ' done under compulsion because he 
In tnn 1 ,. was necessary for the winning of the war. 
IhUe , of J"‘ ace T , 1,k <* believe that he would not do 
sincini '.in'ii^kings, bul that he would give the farmers a 
an autncrnl" i . < ' low Mr. Hoover has been called 
istrii V )u / ' Ua , s lls "ndhod in the Food Admin- 
e'stpd , K(>t ^gother the parties who were inter- 
wlnt lu. >.• ,)rn I»osition and try to get them to agree to 
dined In t( ! ,K \ dl * not think he was i„- 
greut extwlVT ^ Ings W1 ^ a high hand unless it was in 
-ui miry. A0UICUI.TUKI8T. 
ests He has conspicuous ability, and his work for the 
relief of starving nations excited the admiration of the 
world But it was not such work as fitted him to be 
J resident of a great democracy, for in the course of it 
lie met and dealt with only a few persons high in author¬ 
ity whose decisions were final, while people relieved 
took what was given and were grateful. 
When Air. Hoover came back to America as Food Ad¬ 
ministrator, he found that dealing with the political 
l epiesentatives of our people is a wholly different mat¬ 
ter. It became evident at once that he‘had neither the 
knowledge nor the capacity to work with Congress, and 
that he was not only ignorant of the way things are 
doneunder our government, but out. of sympathy with it. 
1 he real Hoover is not the man his carefully planned 
publicity campaign, both during and after the war, has 
succeeded in creating in the minds of many people. By 
nature he is as autocratic as President Wilson himself. 
• 'It - 1 be nominated and elected, there would be 
in the. White House a natural aristocrat whose sym¬ 
pathy is with big business and the middleman as against 
both the producer and the consumer. 
Tinder Hoover the Food Administration was run 
mainly by and for the packers, canners, millers, and 
other great middlemen, whose subordinates—still paid 
by them—filled the offices, while the men who paid 
tli™ mnilc such profits as they never had known before 
1 he farmers were wholly left out. 
The men in charge of farm production in the Food 
i i . ,r li Ills ^ 1 ‘ a ^ Ion were n °t only ignorant of farm matters, 
but they were actively hostile to the fanner. During my 
service in the Food Administration the man who had 
charge of milk production was a retail tobacco mer¬ 
chant from New York City. 
Tbe Food Administration was apparently filled with 
the belief that it was right for the middlemen to exact 
larger profits from both producer and consumer than 
over before, but wrong for the fanner** not to grow crops 
in abundance from patriotic motives alone, without re- 
gara to whether they could feed their families or pav 
their debts (as Air. Hoover said himself in substance in 
a speech in Philadelphia). 
I ( or a number of months I saw Air. Hoover frequent- 
tv. During the latter part of this time I never saw 
win without a part of the interview consisting of abuse 
[ J’ 11 '™!' 1 ' 8 . by him. His feeling toward them was so 
hitter that it led him to refuse to guarantee a price for 
' i Production of pork when such guarantee was the 
only thing that, could assure the absolutely necessary 
supply of this indispensable food for our Allies and our¬ 
selves. After exhausing every other means of securing 
this guarantee, I finally handed Air. Hoover my resigna¬ 
tion in the following terms (October 25, 1917) : 
• “Because of the continued failure of the Food Ad¬ 
ministration to take effective action for increasing the 
production of meats, which failure is certain to result 
in higher prices to our own people and a shortage in the 
lood supplies needed to win the war, I hereby resign.” 
Aly resignation was successful, because within nine 
days the hood Administration, through Joseph P. Cot¬ 
ton. then in charge of the meat division, issued a state* 
ment to hog producers which adopted the principle for 
which I was contending and in part at least applied it. 
Mr. Hoover makes his appeal for support largely upon 
the ground that he is not allied with the politicians It 
may or may not be true. But it is true that he is now 
and has constantly been the close friend and follower of 
the men of the invisible government who own and con¬ 
trol the machine politicians of both parties. 
I am little impressed by Air. Hoover’s progressive 
talk anil suddenly acquired affection for the farmer. I 
saw him when he had a chance to do what he is now 
talking about, and he did precisely the opposite. In 
my judgment, Air. Hoover is wholly‘unfitted to be Presi¬ 
dent. because in action he has proved to be for the few 
against the great majority, because he has too long been 
out of touch with America and the American people be¬ 
cause he is essentially a foreigner, and therefore is 
neither a real Republican nor a real American. 
OIFKOBI) PINCIIOT. 
WHY 1 OPPOSE MR. HOOVER 
Utatioii^u n' 1 V' s a min ' I ‘g ,M, K in eer of international rep- 
Cl n ’ who f °r years has served great business inter- 
Report of a Dairy Meeting j Discussion 
of Differences 
AN IAfPOR PANT GATHERING.—Dairymen agree 
that, the county meeting of the Dairymen’s League 
at Middletown on April 24 was one of the largest 
and most successful meetings ever held in the county. 
John Arfmann, the president of the county branch 
presided, and enlivened the meeting with his quaint 
logic and ready eloquence. Locally the meeting was 
a timely one. The dairymen of Orange County are 
intelligent and progressive and independent. They 
know the traditions of the business. They are close 
enough to New York City to keep in rather close 
touch with affairs. They form their own conclusions, 
and naturally they differ in judgment. While in 
detail there are probably many differences of 
opinion, two main groups exist; and as long as they 
kept apart the differences seemed more formidable 
than they really were. The differences grew out of 
policies exclusively, and not from rivaly for posi¬ 
tions. Some accept the administration policies 
entirely. The others advocate other policies, and for 
that reason there was some disposition by the first 
group to class the latter as weak members. The 
meeting completely eliminated that feature. All 
now realize the common interest. 
HARAIONIZING POLICIES.—There were no 
quitters at the meeting, nor in Orange County, and 
no sentiment was more spontaneously applauded 
tha nthe assertion that the best members were not 
necessarily those who accept, things as they find 
them; hut those who are not content or satisfied 
until the Dairymen’s League is the best organized 
and best managed co-operative dairy organization 
in the world. The acknowledgement of that principle 
is a distinct gain for the organization. Dairymen 
will yet have their differences of opinion; the most 
timid can express themselves, and the League will 
have the benefit of the free and candid judgment of 
all its members. 
PLANS PRESENTED.—The speakers at the Alid- 
dletown meeting were R. D. Cooper and John J. 
Dillon. Air. Cooper read and explained the new con¬ 
tract which is proposed by the new plan under the 
Dairymen’s League Co-operative Association, Inc. 
Air. Dillon developed what he considered funda¬ 
mental principles of co-operative organization and 
practical plans to develop the dairy industry and sell 
milk at a profit. The principal differences were in 
the following particulars: 
1- The plan presented by Air. Cooper provides 
that a central organization be created to have owner¬ 
ship and control of all the county plants both for 
manufacturing and shipping milk, and the sale of it 
to dealers. This he called central control. It is nec¬ 
essary, he said, to have this control at the head in 
order to take a prompt and stern hand when 
individual farmers skimmed their milk or watered 
it, or became careless in the handling of it. 
The individual dairymen would furnish the money 
to buy or build the plants, and furnish capital for 
operation. This would be a loan to the association, 
to be paid back out of assessments against the milk. 
I he association would own the plants and the capi¬ 
tal fund. The local branches would be incorporated, 
but the contract would be direct between the indi¬ 
vidual farmer and the central association. By vir¬ 
tue of this contract the milk would be delivered to 
the association, which would sell it or manufacture 
it. There would be no price fixed for it to the pro¬ 
ducer. The milk or by-product would be sold AH 
expenses would be deducted. Then a percentage 
would be deducted to pay back 20 per cent each year 
of the original investment, and after that a percent¬ 
age would be taken for general promotion and devel¬ 
opment expenses. The total of these items would be 
taken out of the monthly milk bill, and the balance 
returned to the producer. Each year a certificate 
would be issued for the total deductions taken to 
repay investments, and one of these would again be 
repaid out of new levies on the milk each year. So 
that the levies on new milk to pay the old certificates 
would be perpetual. The levies for redemptions 
would be limited to the amount required to repay 
the certificates; but no limit is placed on the amount 
required for expense or for general purposes. The 
central officers would be elected this way: The 
local dairymen would elect a member of a regional 
board. This board would elect a director. There 
would be 24 regional boards and 24 directors. These 
would elect officers, and officers would elect the exec¬ 
utive committee. 
A NO 1 HER PLAN.—Under Air. Dillon’s plan the 
officers would,be elected by a direct majority vote of 
the members. A system would be provided to vote 
at the local branches by secret ballot, not only to 
(hit. officeis but also for a referendum on important 
policies. The other plan would put the organization 
in the hands of a small minority, and officers once 
installed could perpetuate themselves in the admin¬ 
istration. In a healthy organization there will al¬ 
ways be differences of opinion; and the only way to 
secure full confidence and unity is by a fair majority 
lule. i he central officers should have all the author¬ 
ity necessary to secure clean, wholesome, unadul¬ 
terated milk, and to sell it. and to direct when it be 
.shipped and when manufactured, but the plants should 
be owned and controlled by the local members, who iu 
any event pay for them. The assessments should be 
approved by the locals, and the returns made to them 
foi distribution to members. The local ownership 
would involve less initial expense, and less hazard 
to the members, many of whom are not in position 
to assume unnecessary risks. With such unlimited 
authority and power vested in the central officers, 
the means for majority control are absolutely essen¬ 
tial to safeguard the investment of members. Grant¬ 
ing that it is not necessary now, it is our duty to 
safeguard the future. One of the great needs of co¬ 
operation is the development of local business talent. 
1 ndei the other plan the farmer would have nothing 
to do. 1 he central officers would do everything ami 
i lie local boys would have no opportunity to learn by 
doing for themselves. Exclusive management from 
the top is not co-operation. It is the truest, form of 
autocracy. Co-operation means majority rule and 
trust in the ability and integrity of the masses. If 
autocratic control from the top is necessary, if we 
cannot trust the masses, then we can have no co¬ 
operation. (Continued on page 919) 
