Puslapio vaizdai

are somewhat lower than those in item 34. This is particularly true during the last five years, since the railway-wage basis during this time has been high compared to the hired-hand basis.


Item 1: Number of farmers in the State.—The method of determining this item was indicated under item 6 above, in figuring the cost of hired labor.

Item 2: Monthly wages of hired labor without board.—This item, by years, throughout the period, was furnished by the United States Department of Agriculture.

Item 3: Farm-owned automobiles.—The method of determining this item was indicated under item 13 above.

Item 4: Interest rate on farm mortgage indebtedness. The high and low points, by years, were taken from the annual report of E. D. Chassell, secretary-treasurer of Farm Mortgage Bankers Association, as published in the October 3, 1925. issue of the United States Invester. The intervening years have been supplied,

Item 5: Bank interest rate. This item is from unpublished material furnished by Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture, for years 1914, 1918, 1921, and 1923. Interpolated for other years.


Excerpt from a statement by Congressman Fort in the hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture, March 15, 1926:

Mr. Fort. May I make a statement and ask a question simultaneously? I have been accused of being opposed to this legislation, and in view of what Mr. Vrooman has said I want to put in the record this statement: That there is another reason, which he did not mention, and which, in my opinion, is another reason why an exportable surplus is a national necessity, and that is that upon the maintenance of an export surplus of various commodities depends our advantageous position in our balance of trade with foreign nations. If we eliminate the exportable balance of surplus of farm commodities, we will become a debtor nation within 10 years.

Excerpts from a statement by Dr. Thomas C. Atkeson, Washington representative, National Grange, before the House Committee on Agriculture, February 25, 1924:

Mr. ATKESON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, some of you perhaps know that it is my privilege to represent a farm organization in Washington. I think it is the oldest of the farm organizations. The last annual session was its fifty-seventh annual session. If in this more than a half a century of its existence this organization has not learned some things, it ought to have been chloroformed when it was younger.

Under the procedure in our meetings we follow a very different method from most of the loosely organized farm organizations. Our session covers a period of never less than 10 days, and has continued 16 days for the longest session. So some deliberation and consideration is given to all the questions that come before this organization at its annual sessions. Its annual sessions are generally numerously attended. Three years ago, at the Boston session, I think that was the most numerously attended session that the organization has ever held. We probably had in that city 15,000 farmers. Being a dues-paying, secret organization, we know exactly how many people take the highest degree in the organization, which they can only get at a national session.

Away back in 1894, å gentleman who was then a member of the California State Grange, and whose proposition had been indorsed by that State grange, was presented to the National Grange.

I thank you very much, and if you care to have these 18 whereases placed in the record, I will be glad to turn them over to the reporter in order that he may

Mr. SINCLAIR. I think they ought to be placed in the record, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The matter referred to is as follows:)

1. Our imports and interest on foreign loans must be paid in bullion or commodities, and as no nation can make such payments in bullion, therefore the payments in our country must be made in commodities.

2. A protective tariff on manufactures enhances their prices in the United States, and therefore renders their export impracticable, leaving only agricul.tural staples to constitute the great bulk of our exports.

do so.

This wage

3. The highest price obtainable for our export agricultural products is no higher than the lowest price at which they can be bought in the world. These products are therefore sold for export at the world's free-trade prices.

4. As the export and home prices for staple agricultural products are the same, it follows that these products are sold at home and abroad at the world's free-trade or Liverpool prices.

5. Nor is this all. The cost of transportation from the place of production to Liverpool is first deducted from the Liverpool price, and this, whether the product is exported or sold for consumption at home, even within sight of the place of production. We have, as a conclusion, that by reason of the protective tariff, manufactures are sold in our country at enhanced or artificial prices, while agricultural staples are sold for export and home use at the world's freetrade Liverpool prices, less cost of transportation from place of production to Liverpool

6. As the importance of the staple agricultural industry exceeds that of manufacturers, and as it is the only great industry in our country that must sell its products at the world's free-trade prices, and must, through the operation of the tariff, pay protection prices for necessities, and as this is the only great industry to do this, it therefore follows that staple agriculture pays the cost of protection to the manufactures.

7. Protection to manufacturers made a high wage rate possible. rate brought skill, and skill developed inventive genius, and inventive genius produced labor-saving agricultural machines. These machines in the hands of the American producer of agricultural staples amply repaid him for any costs for the protection of manufactures. With the powerful aid of labor-saving machines he could, until recently, produce his crops so profitably as to enable him to compete successfully with the cheapest labor in the world. In other words, the agricultural labor-saving devices gave the American producer as much protection as manufacturers enjoyed from the protective tariff.

8. It was destined, however, that the time should come when the American producer should lose his advantage. That time has come. It has been found profitable to place these labor-saving machines into the hands of the cheapest field labor in the world, and as a result the advantage enjoyed by the American producer is gone. The loss of the advantage has had a tendency to materially lessen the volume of the net returns to producers of staple agriculture, thereby removing the prop which has been the support of the protective system. Protection to manufacture must therefore be abandoned, or the source of the support of protection must itself be protected.

9. The ruling prices for agricultural staples, a portion of which we export having declined to about one-half the former rate, and as these prices promise to remain low permanently, therefore we will be no longer able to continue the profitable production of agricultural staples unless the prices of necessities be lowered to the world's lowest free-trade rate or the prices of agricultural staples be enhanced in our country the same as manufactures are enhancedbut not by a tariff alone, for a tariff can not enhance the home price of export which is sold at the world's lowest price. It can, however, be done by a Government bounty on agricultural products exported from the United States to foreign seaports. This, when done, will enhance the price, not alone of the exports, but in an equal degree the much greater quantity sold for home consumption.

10. Duties on imports levied for protection protect home manufacture and production by enhancement of prices, but they can not protect fully one-half of our industry, namely, the staples of agriculture, because they are exports and not imports.

11. The producers of the unprotected half, being consumers of protected home manufactures, and of duty paid imports, pay all costs of the protective system.

12. The true purpose of protection should be, not to levy on a portion of the American people only for the support of another portion, but to protect all American industries against the competition of foreign countries.

13. An industry producing a surplus for export can be protected by a Gov. ernment bounty on exports of such surplus. It would enhance the price in our country of the quantity exported and also the greater quantity for home use.

14. To protect an industry producing a surplus for export, there must be a fund to pay the cost of a bounty on the export, and in consideration of that which has been stated above, equity demands that the funds collected as duty for the protection of the manufacturing half of our industry should be applied to the payment of bounties on exports for the protection of the other half, namely, staple agriculture.

15. A just government has no right in equity to create revenues for the benefit of some to the injury of others. But the Government does produce revenues by the protective tariff, which benefit some and injure others, and uses such revenues to meet its expenses. In this the Government is unjust.

16. To correct this injustice the Government should either cease to collect protective duties, or should use the revenues derived from protecting one-half of our country's industries to place the unprotected half upon an equality with the former, and thus effect a just balance between the two, thereby removing the antagonism between them, now disturbing our political and economic system.

17. The protective duty levied on imports and expended on staple agricultural exports will therefore protect both manufactures and staple agriculture.

18. Now, since the Government must have revenue for support, all the people should be required to contribute by modes of just taxation to such support; any revenues derived from the protection of manufactures should be considered a trust fund, and may be used for the protection of unprotected staples of agriculture by aiding their export.


Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is F. W. Murphy. I live at Wheaton, Minn., up in the lower end of the Red River Valley. I have the ownership and am charged with the responsibility of farming 5,000 acres of land.

Senator SMITH. How did you manage to get down here if you have that much liability?

Mr. MURPHY. By borrowing the money, Senator.
Senator HARRELD. How far is that from Detroit ?
Mr. MURPHY, Detroit, Minn.?
Senator HARRELD. Yes.
Mr. MURPHY. About 90 miles south and west of Detroit.

The CHAIRMAN. You were a member of the so-called Des Moines Council ?

Mr. MURPHY. I am going to explain just whom I represent.
The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would do that.

Mr. MURPHY. I was in Washington in the winter of 1923 and 1924 for five or six months and took a very active part in the campaign for the enactment of the original McNary-Haugen bill, and during that campaign a number of us who were active in the work succeeded in developing a pretty strong general organized agricultural backing for that bill. When the bill failed to pass in the House we had a conference here in Washington with those representatives of farm organizations and farm people who were still here and decided to hold a meeting in St. Paul, in my State, in July of 1924, with the idea in mind of developing a central organization through which the American farmers might speak in coming to this Congress, in demanding what seemed then to be positively necessary, as it is to-day still more necessary, that legislation be enacted giving the farmer the benefit of the American protective system, and the meeting was held in St. Paul in July, 1924, and attended by representatives of 49 farm organizations of this country, including six or seven national farm organizations, such as the National Grange, Farmers' Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Wheat Growers, the National Livestock Producers' Association and one or more others that I can not recall, and the others attending that meeting were State and regional farm organizations of farm prople throughout the country, with the exception of the cotton States. “At that meeting, which continued for two days, the American Council of Agriculture was developed as a national organization to speak in a national way for the organization people, not, however, to the exclusion of any of the national organizations speaking for themselves, and not in any field of service of any of these farm organizations, and I am chairman of the board of that council.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean you are chairman of the National Council ?

Mr. MURPHY. I am chairman of the board of the American Council of Agriculture.

The CHAIRMAN. That is different from the National Council?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes. I do not know of any other council named American Council.”

Senator SMITH. Of farm organizations?
Mr. MURPHY. There is a National Board of Farm Organizations.

The CHAIRMAN. What is this council of which Robert W. Bingham, of Louisville, Ky., is chairman?

Mr. Murphy. I do not know the legal name of that, but it is a cooperative organization.

Senator HEFLIN. What connection have you with the one that Mr. Marsh represents ?

Mr. MURPHY. None.

The CHAIRMAN. Just look at that letterhead. There is an organization of which Mr. Peteet is secretary, who is pretty well known to this committee, and who has testified here on several occasions.

Mr. MURPHY. That is the National Council of Farmers' Cooperative Marketing Associations.

The CHAIRMAN. Marketing associations?
Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. Walton Peteet is secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not the council you are saying was organized in St. Paul ?

Mr. MURPHY. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You are not connected with this?
Mr. MURPHY. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. MURPHY. In May of 1925 a meeting was held at Des Moines, participated in by a very large number of leaders of farm organizations in the West, the Middle West and the North Central States, and as an outgrowth of that meeting the so-called Corn Belt committee was organized, of which Mr. William Hirth is chairman, who is here and will speak in support of the same legislation that we are addressing our support to.

In December, 1925, the American Council of Agriculture created at St. Paul-that is the one I called your attention to-and the Corn Belt committee, to which I have also directed your attention, was held at Des Moines on the 21st and 22d of December, and at that joint meeting of those two great organizations, representing organized agriculture, a legislative committee of 12 was selected to come here to urge the enactment by this Congress of legislation then right definitely agreed upon, and I am here as the chairman of that legislative committee of 12.

The so-called Des Moines conference of business interests created the committee of 22, which is a committee representing the business interests of the 12 States participating in the Des Moines conference, and George Peek is chairman of that committee, and that committee is backing the legislation that our legislative committee of 12 has brought here and is supporting in this Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. There is unity of action between your committee representing the farm organizations and the committee representing the business organizations?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. I think we get it now.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes. We are in entire harmony in our demands here.

Senator SACKETT. Which bill is this?

Mr. MURPHY. There has been laid before you a committee print of the bill, and I can identify it more specifically by calling your attention to the testimony of Chester Davis, given here the other day in explanation of that bill, as that is the one that we are supporting, and that is the one that organized agriculture of this country is backing here in this Congress.

Senator SACKETT. Is it this print of March 30?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is it.

Senator SACKETT. Is this committee print a modified form of the Dickinson bill to some extent?

The CHAIRMAN. When Mr. Davis was before us we had a first print and they have been working with the cotton men ever since, and I put them in touch with the drafting bureau and ordered this printed myself, through the proper sources, for the benefit of the committee.

Senator SACKETT. That is the crowd that was here the other day? The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MURPHY. We have been in town, Senator, for more than a month, and for more than three weeks we have been engaged in presenting this bill before the House Committee on Agriculture. We closed our hearings over there two or three days ago. I want to assure you gentlemen of the committee that there are no deflections in our ranks, and there is no dissension. Our people are agreed absolutely upon this legislation.

I am not going to make a very long statement, but when I finish I want to ask Mr. William Hirth, chairman of the Corn Belt committee to make a statement to you touching conditions agriculturally somewhat as he understands them, and also confirming the set-up of our agricultural committee, showing that it does represent organized agriculture. I make this one exception, that the National Grange has not come forward supporting this bill, neither has it come forward opposing it. I do not know what the attitude of the grange will be definitely upon that, but I do know that the grain States of the Northwest and the Middle West are supporting the bill, and also some of the corn States farther east.

Senator HARRELD. What relation has the cotton group had with this bill?

Mr. MURPHY. I would prefer, Senator, to have them speak for themselves, which I rather think they may do to-morrow morning.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »