page_title: McNary–Haugen Farm Relief Bill
section_title: Bill
hierarchical_section_title: McNary–Haugen Farm Relief Bill / Bill
caption_attribution_description: English: Editorial cartoon showing US President Calvin Cooldige carrying the McNary–Haugen Farm Relief Bill in a dust pan out to a trash can labeled "VETO", as a distressed figure in the background labeled "Congress" yells "CALVIN!" Title: Illinois Agricultural Association record [microform] Identifier: 5060538.1923-1930 Year: 1923 (1920s) Authors: Illinois Agricultural Association; Illinois Agricultural Association. Record Subjects: Agriculture -- Illinois Publisher: Mendota, Ill.&#160;: The Association Contributing Library: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Digitizing Sponsor: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign View Book Page: Book Viewer About This Book: Catalog Entry View All Images: All Images From Book Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book. Text Appearing Before Image: So u among ington had a would Barnes, that was Calvin the easier of such ture was than on The'jCoolidge Veto political explosion expected to follow Coolidge's veto of the McNary-Haugen B stabilization bill has, as yet, failed to and friends of Mr. Coolidge here are ) secret of their satisfaction." the burden of a Washington press dis» the White House favorites are gloating they have done. It is true there has Explosion. The veto was less of a sur- "armers and the West than our Eastern realize, although we had reason from and observations to expect some- The veto certainly showed little The merits of the farm relief pro- lingly, were never considered. appeared to be inimical to the interests it promised to raise the price Therefore it was rejected. The Presi- astute a politician to break with the selfish, moneyed crowd that maneuv- into office. Had he signed the bill there would have been a terrific explosion disappointed Easterners. The Wash- the President's champion, would have of apoplexy and passed out. So Mellon, Herbert Hoover, Julius O'Leary, and the rest of the crowd bitterly opposed to the measure.&#160;!^oolidge was in a tight place. He chose way out. It's our hard luck that an issue onomic importance to American agricul- |ettled by political considerations rather own merits. "The President farm pric materialise making n This is patch, over what been no prise to neighbors past expe riences thing diff Brent, statesmanjship posal The bil of the indjustrialists of food, dent is prejudice|i ered him indoubteAly tco the Poit sti oke Andrew J)hn it! picion called the The Veto Message THE McNary-Haugen veto message of Presi- dent C oolidge made a profound impression on of people whose notion of the surplus control plkn was more or less hazy. It was worded to accomiilish just that, to arouse doubt and sus- I^ raised the old bogey of price-fixing, it bill sectional and class legislation. It accused the plan of promoting one-crop farming, of being (conomically unsound, of being unwork- able and inconstitutional. When Ihe writers had tired of throwing bricks and had lun out of bad names, like the small boy with his tpngue out whose parting shot is "you're us a thousand times," they said: "This measure is so long and involved that it is impossiblt to discuss it without going into many tiresome Retails. Many other reasons exist why it be approved, but it is impossible to state them all v lithout writing a book." All these objections were raised in the House Senate debates. All were effectively an- swered. The bill might have been unconstitutional in the mcsthod provided for the selection of; the Federal Farm Board. But the Supreme Court could have decided this point, after all a small one, if the issue (iver arose. length of the message, and its unusual on the other hand, gave it the ap- of an apology for the veto. Many of the accusktions could have been used against the The vehemencje pearance Federal Reserve Act, the protective tariff, the Immigration Act, the Esch-Cummins Act and other legislation none of which allows "free play of com- petition." The reply by the Executive Committee of 22, is published in full in this issue. Every member should read it carefully. The criticism of the message is set forth under 14 points. The reply refrains from saying that a book might have been written in criticism of the message. Labor and the Farmer John H. Walker, president of the Illinois State Federation of Labor commented favorably on the jrrowing friendliness between organized labor and the organized farmer, in a recent talk at Cham- paign. He referred to the school of thought which believed or believes that organized labor by rea- son of its success in gaining higher wages and shorter hours is largely responsible for the high cost of commodities the farmer must buy, for the scarcity and high cost of good farm'help, and for the disparity in prices between agricultural and non-agricultural goods. There is another side to this question which thinking farmers fully appre- ciate. Labor and the farmer unquestionably have much in common. Labor belongs to the consumer group. It buys what the farmer produces. Pros- perous labor is the farmers' best customer. Few if any begrudge labor its better working condi- tions and higher standards of living. They realize that labor through organization has done for itself what farmers have yet to accomplish. On the othei" hand, labor has been sympathetic to the farmers needs and demands. In Illinois, the State Federation endorsed the McNary-Haugen bill. It f(^ught for tax revision on the basis of ability to pay. Its leaders have shown a most admirable broadness of vision in these and other questions. Farmers have much to learn from labor. With as thorough and unified an organization as the latter, agriculture could get what it needs with much less effort than has already been expended toward securing surplus control legislation. The Outlook for 1927 The 1927 outlook of the federal bureau of agri- cultural economics is on the whole decidedly pes- simistic. It says there is slight hope for improve- ment unless there is a drastic cut in acreage of corn, cotton, wheat, and rice. It credits the livestock and dairy business with more favorable prospects. These and other farm commodities are briefly mentioned in the outlook report, as follows: "A slightly larger supply of farm labor and possibly lower wages. "Hard spring and durum wheat growers cannot expect as much for the 1927 crop as they received in 1926. "Corn growers are faced with the prospect of lower prices unless acreage is substantially reduced. "Oats and barley are likely to be in greater demand for feed. Prices will depend upon supply. "Prices of cattle are expected to average somewhat higher than 1926. "Hog producers have a favorable outlook but present prices will continue through 1928 only if pork production is held down to the level of the past two years. "Sheep production expected to increase slightly but a strong consumptive demand is anticipated. "The dairy industry is on a stronger basis than a year ago. "Egg and poultry producers may not expect as profitable a year as 1926. "Horses and mules are plentiful enough to meet demands but supplies of young stock are low. "Potato growers should guard against overplanting by watching acreage plantings in other states. "Trend of fruit production is upward but as large a crop as last year is not likely again. Don't plant more peach trees. "Increase alsike and red clover seed production." Cutting production by acreage reduction is not always effective because of the uncertainties of the weather. But it will be well to heed the hand- writing on the wall as revealed in statements of surplus and its possible effect on prices. For the diversified livestock farmer the chances for making some money in 1927 are good. For the straight grain farmer opportunity is less favorable. A good poultry flock will pay because the demand for poultry products is firm and we are still on a domestic consumptive basis under the protection of the tariff. It is now up to the farmer to help himself. Text Appearing After Image: 4 Courtesy Scripps-Howard Papers) /. A. A. Offices Retaified Offices of the I. A. A. will be retained in the Transportation Building, the present location at 608 So. Dearborn St., the Executive Committee de- cided at its last meeting. While slight savings in rent might have been realized by moving a distance from the loop, the inconvenience to directors and members who come to the city and the loss of time involved in going to meetings and maintaining contacts with other groups were held to counteract the difference in cost. The I. A. A. pays its rent a year in advance and thereby secures a discount of 15 per cent from the regular rate. Approximately 5500 square feet of space are used by all departments of the Association. The loop is slightly overbuilt with office space as a result of the many new skyscrapers recently completed. Bids were secured from many space sellers anxious to have the I. A. A. officers. J Note About Images Please note that these images are extracted from scanned page images that may have been digitally enhanced for readability - coloration and appearance of these illustrations may not perfectly resemble the original work.
context_page_description: The McNary–Haugen Farm Relief Act, which never became law, was a controversial plan in the 1920s to subsidize American agriculture by raising the domestic prices of farm products. The plan was for the government to buy the wheat and then store it or export it at a loss. It was co-authored by Charles L. McNary and Gilbert N. Haugen. Despite attempts in 1924, 1926, 1927, and 1931 to pass the bill, it was vetoed by President Calvin Coolidge, and not approved. It was supported by Secretary of Agriculture Henry Cantwell Wallace and Vice President Charles Dawes.
  According to the bill, a federal agency would be created to support and protect domestic farm prices by attempting to maintain price levels that existed before the First World War. By purchasing surpluses and selling them overseas, the federal government would take losses that would be paid for through fees against farm producers.
context_section_description: A plan suggested by George Peek and Hugh S. Johnson, of the Moline Plow Company, called for new tariffs to protect farmers from foreign producers and a federal program for price supports. Wallace and Henry C. Taylor, head of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, rallied behind the plan, which formed the basis for the bill introduced by McNary of Oregon and Representative Haugen of Iowa, both Republicans. The basic idea of the bill was an equalization fee. The government was to segregate the amounts required for domestic consumption from the exportable surplus. The former were to be sold at the higher domestic price (the world price plus the tariff), using the full advantage of the tariff rates on exportable farm products, and the latter at the world price. The difference between the higher domestic price and the world price received for the surplus was to be met by the farmers of each commodity in the form of a tax or equalization fee, which would be paid by American consumers in the form of higher food prices.
  The legislation was before Congress from 1924 to 1928. It received powerful and united support from agricultural interests in 1927 and in 1928, respectively, when it passed both houses. Gleason (1958) shows that most leading businessmen opposed the bill on the grounds that it was contrary to economic law and would cost money and involve the government in business. Farmers were urged to reduce production, practice crop diversification, and support the cooperative movement. The plan was opposed also on the moral ground that it would destroy the farmer's self-reliance. 
  President Calvin Coolidge listened to business and killed the bill twice with vigorous vetoes. Coolidge instead supported the alternative program of Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover and Agriculture Secretary William M. Jardine to modernize farming, by bringing in more electricity, more efficient equipment, better seeds and breeds, more rural education, and better business practices. Hoover advocated the creation of a Federal Farm Board, which was dedicated to restriction of crop production to domestic demand, behind a tariff wall, and he maintained that the farmer's ailments were because of defective distribution. Coolidge finally committed himself to a farm board plan for price stabilization by co-operatives. Rejecting the McNary–Haugen plan, so popular in Congress, the Hoover plan was adopted in 1929.
  As president of Kansas State Agricultural College from 1918, Jardine developed a free-market program of education and co-operative marketing for Kansas farmers. His advice was increasingly sought in Washington and led in 1922 to the formation of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, meant to assist farm cooperatives. As Secretary of Agriculture after 1925, after the death of Wallace, Jardine made proposals that offered relief for farmers but preserved a free market, which led to Hoover's Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929, too far into the worsening farm crisis to succeed after the onset of the Great Depression.
  Henry Agard Wallace, the son of the elder Wallace, was furious over Coolidge's vetoes of the McNary–Haugen Bill and supported Alfred E. Smith against Hoover for the presidency in 1928. He was pleased by enactment of the Agricultural Marketing Act in the Hoover administration but cited its lack of provisions for checking overproduction, and he wrote hard-hitting editorials against the Hawley–Smoot Tariff, which passed in 1930. The younger Wallace established himself as the preeminent Farm Belt leader, wrote the major farm speech of the Franklin D. Roosevelt presidential campaign, and in 1933, he became Secretary of Agriculture in his father's footsteps.
  Porter (2000) follows the growth of activity among the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF) membership and leadership on behalf of the legislation. It was the first farm organization to endorse the McNary–Haugen plan and also supported other groups working toward the plan's passage and paid the costs of sending its president, Charles E. Hearst, to Washington on extended lobbying trips. Though the 
caption: President Coolidge vetoes the bill
exif: {}