Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-11-13
Nov. 8, 1929.

Senate Office Building
Washington D. C.
Ny dear Senator Smoot:
have read your letter of October 80 with the ut
most interest and am very glad to have the opportunity
of replying to you.
Broadly your letter seeks to convey two conclu-
sons One conclusion is that the Republican party made
certain pledges industry The other conclusion is that
we who speaking for agriculture following false
economic and political gods.
The first conclusion, to wit: that the Republican
party has certain pledge obligations to industry you seek
to prove by multiplicity of quotations from the Repub
can party platform and from President Hoovers pre-
election speeches
May respectfully submit that all this is wholly
necessary May submit that it is not only unnecessary
but u.s. inadvertently, doubt avoidance of the ISSUE
The issue in our correspondence simply has to do
with the failure of the Republican party make good
certain solemn and definite pledges made to agriculture
The issue has nothing to do with the partys pledge to
industry At the Kansas City Convention the Repub
lican party officially said
"The Republican party pledges itself to the develop
ntent and enactment of (Which Wiu place the
agricultural interests of America basis of economic
equality NTH other industries insure its prosperity
and success"
The Republican party platform also said:
"A protective tariff is as vitd to American agrcul-
tire as it to American manufacturing The Repub-
kcdm party believes that the home market built up under
the protective policy belongs to the American farmer,
and pledges its support of legislation which ,Uu gUe
this market to him to the full ertent of his ability to sap
ply It,"
The gravamen of our complaint is simply this:
that the Republican party gives evidence of its intent
either to place agriculture basis of economic equal
N with other industries to give the home market to
lie American farmer Beyond these two pledges we do
not CO. and appears to that matter of logic the
recitation of the parys pledges industry has bear
hg whatever on the issue.
know that there industries that need addition
al tariff assistance know that there industries in
need Of tariff assistance that not asking for help
I am tUiling and anxious that they should.
There cannot be any disagreement between you and
this point. am merely trying to confne the
issue the points raise-the failure to keep the
equality and the home market pledges.
Our request for parity of treatment for agricul-
ture is continuously answered if such request
in its very nature assault upon industry Surely you
and your Republican fellow senators not yet willing
to assert that the attainment of equality for ag
riculture the possession of the home market
destruction an Impairment of industry YET that you
admit this is the unavoidable conclusion to which we
must come if pleas for the fulfment of the partys
pledges are forever answered by relating to the
pledges the party made to industry, if the
the negation of the other.
Our contention is, and dlo0ays has been that par
ity for agriculture mast of necessity increased
prosperity for industry and labor The citation of the
Republican parys pledges to industry to
orr demands for equality of treatment for agricuL
ture is an ANSWER to fictitious belief that zoe most en-
Jo no4 hold f;cfifjous cbnrn1 ~,oe@