Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1921-12-02
VOLSTEAD DENOUNCES
SENATE AMENDMENTS
Wants Farmers Left Free To
Develope Cooperative
Enterprises.


ments offered by the Senate Judi
ciary Committee to the Capper-Vol-
stead bill, legaliZing collective bar
gaining by farmers, were severely
criticized in a speech here today by
Congressman Volstead, chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee. Mr..
Volstead said acceptance by Congress
of such amendments would place
farm organizations in a more uncer-
tain condition in relation to the Sher-
man antitrust law than they now oc-
cupy. He calls upon the Senate to
j state it's position clearly and not
camoufage it's intention.
Mr.. Volstead said in part:
''In the last Congress bill was in
troduced, known as the Capper-Hers-
man bill. The Hersman bill came to
the committee on the Judiciary of
the House, of which I have the honor
of being chairman. A hearing was
had on this measure before the full
committee, and after consulting with
a good many friends of the measure,
both in and out of Congress, I con-
| cluded it could not be passed. I then
Lyman, Gray Silver and number of
others who were actively interested,
that the object sought by this bill
! could be accomplished in another
way. l submitted to them draft of
the measure now pending in Congress
familiarly known as the Capper-Vol-
stead bill. To this draft they made
certain suggestions that were en-
bodied in the measure as 1 subse-
quently introduced and passed it in
the House. 1t was also passed in the
Senate, but with some amendments
to which 1 objected.
! "At the beginning of the last ses-
sion of Congress 1 modified the bill
| slightly and re-introduced and pass
ed it in the House. 1t is now pend
ing in the Senate, but the committee
on the Judiciary of that body recon-
mends certain amendments which !
hope the Senate will not adopt The
amendment to which I especially OBJ
ject in effect provides that if the for
nation of an association results in
| the creation of or an attempt to
create monopoly, the organization
itself is illegal. This as 1 construe
the decision of the court has the eff
feet of taking away with one hand
what is supposed to be given with
the other, and would leave the le-
gality of these organizations in as
great if not greater doubt than at
present.
''The natural and inevitable effect
of cooperative farm associations is
and always must be to lessen compe-
tition among the farmers in the sale
of their products, and to do that they
must control the sale of a certain
amount of such products. If they
are not to be permitted to do that the
Senate might as we'll say so in so
many words and not camouflage their
intention by pretending to favor CO.
operation. Every such cooperative
association must have in it an ele-
ment of monopoly if it is to serve any
purpose. There is no reason that I
can see why each farmer in a coop
erative organization should not be
dealt with, treated and considered
the same as if he was a stockholder
of an ordinary corporation, and why
they should not have the like power
to act together. Many corporations
have tens of thousands of stockhold-
ers and the number they may have is
unlimited If the farmers can not
offer their products for sale in CO.
operation with each other they are
absolutely at the mercy of the buyers
that buy collectively as the repre-
sentatives of vast aggregates of stock
holders.
Associations of this kind are COM
mon in European countries and have
been in operation for many years.
This country ought to be willing to
treat her farmers as literally as they
are treated there. Their effect has
not been to raise prices to the con-
sumer. In many instances the effect
has been the reverse. They have
tended to prevent much of the gamb-
ling in foodstuffs, and to eliminate
many of the useless middlemen that
stand between the producers, the re-
tailers, and the consumers. 1t is one