The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1921-08-26
FIGHT AGAINST
THE ROBBER LAW
Is INDICATED

During the fall and winter of
1919 and January and February of
1920 the Farmers National Coun-
Gil conducted continuous nation
wide campaign against the Cum
minsEsch law and in favor of the
two-year extention Of government
operation of the railroads. 1t was
vigorously attacked and denounced
by reactionary farm leaders for so
doing but showed that an over
whelming majority of the real farm
ers of America favored the two
year extension. In January, 1920,
representatives of the American
Farm Bureau Federation, of the
National Grange, the National
Farmers Union and of these small
er farm organizations endorsed the
Cummins-Esch law returning the
railroad to their owners with a
guaranteed dividend Representa-
tives of these farm organizations
criticised the Farmers National
Council and asserted that it did not
represent the real sentiment of the
farmers in opposing the Cummins-
Esch law and in demanding and
urging the two-year extension of
government operation of the rail-
roads.
Since that time the Farmers
National Council has been COM
pletely indicated in the position it
took. The Council repeatedly stat
ed during its campaign that large
increase in freight rates would be
inevitable under the Cummins -Esch
law through the inherent waste
fulnebs of private competitive OPP
GRAFTON of the railroads and the
guarantee of dividends, that law
has proven the most severe blow
that agriculture has received for
many years. The American Farm
Bureau Federation, the National
Grange and the National Farmers
Union have all had to change their
position on the Cummins-Esch law
and have denounced the guaran-
teed dividend feature, but their ac-
ton last year has cost the farm
ers of America at least a billion
dollars and probably much more.
The American Farm Bureau Fed
GRAFTON at the conclusion of it's two
weeks conference in the national
capital in April issued statement
urging the repeal of guaranteed
railroad returns in which the state
ment was made.
"The transportation act of 1920
contained a provision which at
tempts to compel the Interstate
Commerce Commission to make
rates sufficient to produce a min
imum net return of 51a per cent
or more above all expenses and
taxes on the present value of Amer
lean railroads. The American Farm
Bureau Federation believes this
provision is paternalistic class leg
islation as it attempts to make a
government guaranty on the cost
plus basis. This provision has
caused the commission to establish
excessive increases in rates which
have served to paralyze American
industry"
The officers of the American
Farm Bureau Federation know per-
fectly we'll that the Cummins- Esch
law was no more paternalistic class
legislation" in April, 1921, than it
was in January, 1920. 1t was just
the same sort of legislation and
has just the same sort of an eff
feet then as now. The spokesman
for the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the National Grange and
the National Farmers Union either
incompetent to judge the effects of
legislation or wilfully played the
game of the big financial interests
in endorsing the Cummins- Esch
law in 1920, when the inevitable
results thereof were obviously clear
to every person who had really
studied the railroad situations, are
they safe leaders of the farmers
today?
American farmers realize that
not only must the guaranteed divi-
dend section of the Cummins- Esch
law be repealed, but that the entire
law must be repealed and the roads
restored to unified government op-
Grafton for service and not for
speculative profit. This is only
the sure way to reduce freight rates
to normal level.