7hr RURAL NEW-YORKER 
1591 
A Square Deal for the Farmer 
If the farmers of the United States think they 
have nothing at stake in this election—if they 
think it is simply a contest between the political 
“ins and “outs” and that it makes no particular 
difference to the farmer which wins—they arc 
making a very great mistake, and are likely to 
realize it when too late to help themselves. 
In some matters of interest to the farmers the 
two parties agree. 
For example, both favor strengthening the rural 
credits statutes; both recognize the right of farm¬ 
ers to form co-operative associations for the mar¬ 
keting of their crops; both favor extending our 
foreign markets; both are pledged to the study of 
producing farm crops. 
Now, the matters mentioned are important, but 
not nearly so important as certain other matters; 
and in the way they look at these tremendously 
more important matters we find a radical differ¬ 
ence between the Republican and the Democratic 
parties. 
The difference is so vital that if the farmers of 
the country once understand it, there will be not 
the slightest doubt as to which party they will 
support at the polls in November. 
The farm voice in 
government 
The Republican party in its national platform 
is committed to “practical and adequate farm rep¬ 
resentation in the appointment of governmental 
officials and commissions.” 
Are not farmers entitled to such representa¬ 
tion." The Republican party thinks they are. 
Under Republican rule, for sixteen years that 
sturdy and faithful Iowa farmer, “Tama Jim” 
Vi ilson, was at the head of the great Department 
of Agriculture. 
What happened when the Democrats came into 
power? 
Why, they turned out “Tama Jim” and put in a 
university professor who knew nothing about ag¬ 
riculture and gave no evidence of caring anything 
about it. 
Farm interests are vitally affected by the ad¬ 
ministration of the Federal Reserve banking sys¬ 
tem, by the F'artn Loan system, etc. Should not 
thoroughly competent men who understand the 
farmers’ needs and who have a sympathetic inter¬ 
est in agriculture be on these boards? 
The Republican party thinks they should and 
says so. 
Price fixing and price 
drives 
both parties were asked to promise to put an end 
to price-fixing on farm products and to govern- 
ment drives to beat down prices of farm products. 
1 he Democrats refused to make such a pledge. 
File Republicans agreed and in their national plat¬ 
form are pledged to “put an end to unnecessary 
price-fixing and ill-considered efforts arbitrarily to 
reduce prices of farm products which invariably 
result to the disadvantage of both producer and 
consumer.” 
Do you remember what happened when we got 
in the war? Do you remember President Wilson’s 
definition of a "just price"? He said: 
"By a just price I mean a price which will sus¬ 
tain the industries concerned in a high state of 
efficiency, provide a living for those who conduct 
them, enable them to pay good wages, and make 
possible the expansion of their enterprises,” etc. 
And then do you remember what happened? 
Government contracts of all kinds were let on a 
cost-plus basis. That is, the manufacturer was 
allowed to figure all of the cost of ever}’ kind 
which he incurred (.and he was not restricted in 
his expense) and in addition was allowed to figure 
a handsome percentage on top of all his expense 
and fix his price to cover everything. 
Was the farmer allowed that “just price” which 
was granted so freely to others? He was not. 
Prices on some of his products were absolutely 
fixed, and without investigation of the cost of 
production. 
One prominent member of the Democratic ad¬ 
ministration when asked about the cost of pro¬ 
duction of farm crops is reported to have said that 
this was no time to investigate farm costs of pro¬ 
duction; that it was the farmer’s business to pro¬ 
duce and not bother his head about the cost. 
Throughout the war the farme'r was frantically 
urged to produce by one crowd, while another 
crowd was using every device of market manipu¬ 
lation to hold down prices of farm products. Was 
that fair? 
Government drives against 
farm prices 
But, someone will say, we were in war, and the 
fan nor should not complain about what it was 
necessary to do. even if they didn’t do it to others. 
V cry well. Let us overlook what happened 
during the war. Let us wipe the slate clean up 
to the signing of the armistice. Let us consider 
what has happened to the farmer since the war 
ended. 
The farmer had been urged to produce to the 
limit and had been assured that even if peace 
came, all he could grow would sell at profitable 
prices. 
Do you remember the price drive in January, 
1919, within three months after the armistice had 
been signed? 
Do you remember the more determined drive 
in July, 1919, when hogs dropped from $22.10 on 
July 15 to $14.50 on October 15, although pork 
products to the consumer dropped on an average 
less than 10%? In June. 1920. hogs were selling 
at $5.50 less per hundred than in Tune. 1919, hut 
retail ham prices were $3.00 per hundred higher. 
As a result of the government drive the pro¬ 
ducer received less and the consumer paid more. 
Who benefited? 
And do you remember the government drive of 
the last three months, and what it has done to the 
prices of grains and livestock? Within two months 
the prospective value of the 1920 corn crop de¬ 
creased three-fourths of a billion dollars. Great 
advertisements announced that the government 
proposed to cut down he cost of living by dump¬ 
ing on the market the millions of pounds of gov¬ 
ernment surplus meat at bargain prices. 
Have you been making so much money on your 
cattle and hogs that you can afford further re¬ 
ductions in prices? 
In July, 1919, No. 2 corn sold in Chicago for 
$2.19 per bushel; in July, 1920, for $1.56, a decrease 
of 29%. In July, 1919, steers sold in Chicago for 
$15.60; in July, 1920, for $15.00, a decrease of 4%. 
In July, 1919, hogs sold in Chicago for $21.85; in 
July, 1920, for $14.85, a decrease of 33%. The de¬ 
crease in wool prices was 25%. In beating down 
prices of these products did the government help 
the consumer? 
According to the United States Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, the consumer paid 24.1% more for his 
food articles in July, 1920, than in July, 1919. He 
paid 12.4% more for his clothing; 47.4% more for 
his fu^l and lighting. During the same time, 
metals and metal products increased 20.9%, lum¬ 
ber and building material 79%, house furnishing 
goods, 47.8G. But according to the same author¬ 
ity all farm products had decreased over 4% in 
July, 1920, as compared with July, 1919. 
We shall not deal further with this sickening 
story of incompetent and inefficient government 
meddling. You know the story in most of its 
details. 
As you think it over, remember this one out¬ 
standing fact: That the Democratic party, if con¬ 
tinued in power, is committed to the same sort of 
a policy in dealing with the farmer and stockman 
that it has followed during the past two years. It 
was asked to promise to stop officious meddling 
which benefits only the speculator and the profit¬ 
eer, but it refused to make such a promise. 
In justice to themselves and their families and 
the generations to come after them, the farmers 
of the United States should put in power the Re¬ 
publican party, which realizes its obligations to 
them and to all other classes of citizens, and 
which further realizes that if the farmer is not 
given a square deal, our agriculture is going to be 
wrecked. 
Talk to your neighbors about these things and 
make sure that they understand what a vital in¬ 
terest the farmer has in the presidential election 
November 2. 
Republican National Committee 
