those not farmers, yet it is doubtless true that he would be better off if he had more leadership from the rank and file of the farmers. An ideal "Council of Agriculture of the United States" would produce exactly this kind of leadership. QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT 1. Describe and comment on the meeting of the bankers' committee on agriculture in Washington in 1919. 2. In what sense is it true that the farmers are not mobilized? 3. What are the two general methods of farmers' organizations securing benefits? 4. Which method has the Grange used, and with what success? 5. Show to what extent labor and capital are organized. Compare agriculture. 6. Cite the case of mobilization by the Credit Men's organization. 7. Show the difficulty of classifying farmers' organizations. 8. According to two farm paper investigations, what organizations are rendering effective service to their communities? 9. Give examples of farmers' organizations coming under each of the following three classes: Federation; national; local. 10. Discuss in detail the Farmers' National Headquarters; the National Board of Farm Organizations; the American Federation of Farm Bureaus. 11. What national organization of farmers is over fifty years old? 12. Discuss the following points concerning the Grange: present status; origin and history; second rise to power; economic program; achievements of the Grange; relation to the so-called " granger laws." 13. Discuss scope and methods of local farmers' organizations. 14. Discuss in detail the Nonpartisan Political League. 15. What is the experience of farmers' parties of the past? 16. Discuss in detail the Canadian Council of Agriculture, and compare with Knights of Labor and American Federation of Labor. 17. What problems of organization now face the farmers? 18. How ought farmers secure political reforms? Economic reforms? 19. Show the merits and defects of the following economic devices in organized agriculture: strikes; syndicalism; limitation of output; collective bargaining. 20. How shall farmers secure farmer leadership? QUESTIONS SUGGESTED BY THE TEXT 1. Prepare a short history of each of the five national farmers' organizations. 2. Do we need an agrarian party? 3. Discuss the achievements of the agrarian party in Germany. 4. Would an agrarian party in this country be. classed as radical or conservative? 5. How should a federation of all agricultural interests be effected? 6. Discuss the 1919 movement in the South to limit the cotton acreage. REFERENCES 1. ATKESON, T. C.: "History of the Grange." 2. BUCK, S. J.: "The Grange Movement." 3. BUTTERFIELD, KENYON: "Chapters in Rural Progress," Chicago, 1907, pp. 136-162. 4. COMMONS, JOHN R., et. al: "Documentary History of American Industrial Society," Vol. 10, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 5. COULTER, JOHN LEE: "Organization Among the Farmers of the United States." Yale Review, New Haven, November, 1909. 6. DARROW, J. WALLACE: "History of the Grange." Chatham. 7. DRAYTON, C. O.: "Farmers must be Coöperators." Equity Textbook. Equity Union Publishing Co., Greenville, Illinois, 1914. 8. "Grain Growers' Textbook." Published by Equity Coöperative Exchange, Fargo, North Dakota, 1911. 9. "Grain Growers' Textbook, No. 2." Published by Equity Coöperative Exchange, St. Paul, 1916. 10. "Industrial Commission Report," Vol. 10, p. ccclxi. 11. LANSDON, W. C., Coöperation: History, Necessity, Methods." A Textbook for Kansas Coöperators. Farmers' Union Library, Vol. 1, No. 1, Salina, Kansas, March, 1915. 12. MARTIN, E. W.: "History of the Grange Movement, or the Farmers' War Against Monopoly." 13. MICHELL, H.: "The Grange in Canada." Bulletin of the Department of History and Political and Economic Science in Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, No. 13, October, 1914. 14. PIERSON, CHARLES W.: "Rise and Fall of the Grange Movement; The Outcome." Popular Science Monthly, December, 1887, 199-208; 368–373. 15. "Proceedings of the Annual Sessions of the Farmers' National Congress of the United States." Published by the Secretary, 204 Second St., S. E., Washington. 16. "Proceedings of National Farmers' Association." Published by the Secretary, Waukesha, Wisconsin. 17. MCVEY, FRANK L.: "The Populist Movement." Economic Studies, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1896. 18. BOYLE, JAMES E.: "The Agrarian Movement in the Northwest." American Economic Review, Vol. 8, September, 1918, pp. 505-521. 19. GASTON, HERBERT: "The Nonpartisan League." 20. "National Milk Producers' Federation." American Economic Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, Dec., 1917. By-Laws of See Marketing and Farm Credits (Chicago, 1916), 430–432. 21. American Society of Equity." Grain Growers' Guide, April 11, 1917. 22. DREW, -: "The Present Farmers' Movement." Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 6, 282-310, 1891. 23. MOORHOUSE, HOPKINS: "Deep Furrows" (Coöperation among grain farmers of Canada). 24. PEFFER, SENATOR: "The Farmers' Defensive Movement," Forum, Vol. 8, 463-473, 1889. 25. WALKER, 798, 1894. : "The Farmers' Movement." Annals, Vol. 4, 790– 26. BAILEY, L. H. (Editor): "Cyclopedia American Agriculture," Vol. 4. Ch. 7, 276-354. 27. HERRON, L. S.: "An American Farmers' Movement." The Farmers' Union. Grain Growers' Guide, Feb. 19, 1919, 7. 28. For Farmers' Organizations in Other Lands, see International Review of Agricultural Economics, Rome. 29. PEARSON, RAYMOND A.: "Agricultural Organizations in European Countries," Department of Agriculture, Albany, Bulletin 66, Dec., 1914. APPENDIX Principal Farmers' National Organizations, Giving Name and Address of Official Organ 1. American Society of Equity, The Equity News, Milwaukee, Wis. 2. Equity Union, Equity Union Exchange, Greenville, Ill. 3. Farmers' Educational and Cooperative Union of America. No national organ. The following are state or local organs: Farmers' Union, Salina, Kans.; Pacific Farmers' Union, Spokane, Wash.; Colorado Union Farmer, Denver, Col.; Farmers' Union Messenger, Ft. Worth, Texas; Nebraska Union Farmer, Omaha, Neb.; Iowa Union Farmer, Columbus Junction, Iowa; Union Helper, Mt. Vernon, Ill.; James River Clarion, Lynchburg, Va. 4. Gleaners, Gleaner and Business Farmer, Detroit, Mich. 5. Patrons of Husbandry, National Grange Monthly, Springfield, Mass. 6. National Milk Producers' Federation (no organ). Federation of Farmers 7. American Farm Bureau Federation (Weekly News Letter). Political Organizations 8. Nonpartisan League, National Leader, St. Paul, Minn. The Farmer in Business.-"The farmer's interest in the great staple crops of cereals, cotton, wool, sugar beets, sugar cane, hay, beef and pork ceases when he sells the crop. Because orange and apple growers, some truck growers and milk and dairy producers have developed somewhat in marketing enterprises, all consumerdom has undertaken to say, and, worse than that, to really think that the farmer can market his products to consumers. "Mr. Hamilton talks and thinks about buying food direct from the producers. He would have considerable trouble in buying sugar of the sugar beet grower; or flour of the wheat grower, or pork of the hog raiser. He tried a few years ago to help start a "farmers' " market in his city, and along with several hundred other business men is now unable to understand why it has "degenerated" into a "huckster's" market. That mental hiatus has functioned again. "The facts are that the farmer who is really farming, working out a wellconsidered plan for farm operation which accounts for every day and every acre; work for his men, rain or shine; and work for his stock and his machinery which will make each individual item self-sustaining, has no time, no surplus energy, no talent and no training for selling. He does not wish to subject himself to the disagreeable features of peddling, or selling over the counter. His life habits are directed to production and sale in bulk. Mr. Hamilton would not think of turning his sales over to the foreman of his machine shop, but he would do worse when he expects the successful farmer to enter the selling game. And if a group of farmers unite and hire a salesman, and provide facilities for distribution, it is an open question if they can or will-market and distribute their products at any economy over the present competitive distribution system."-"What Mr. Hamilton Doesn't Know," by T. C. Atkeson, Washington Representative of the National Grange. The Nation's Business, October, 1919, p. 26. CHAPTER XX STATE AID THE preceding chapter discussed certain attempts at self-help by organized farmers, and pointed out both the failures and successes of these efforts. State aid is that form of aid, direct or indirect, which is given the farmer by the government. There are two sources of state aid, that coming from the State government and its local divisions, and that from the Federal government. The real aim of all state aid is to make the farmer independent of state aid, able to take care of himself, able to walk alone without leaning on his government. State aid takes many and various forms: some, direct financial aid; some merely regulatory, such as the pure food laws; some, purely educational. Only the more prominent forms of state aid can be discussed here. Direct State Aid.-This is a form of state aid which has been discredited in many times and places, and yet which just as constantly reappears in one form or another as though it were something new. Space is lacking to give a detailed history of each State's experiences in this field. The record of one State must serve as typical for the other States. Hence the State of Kansas is selected, being the geographic center of the country. Kansas experimented repeatedly with subsidies for the promotion of certain crops, and for the development of industries for the further utilization of crops. The following cases illustrate this practice: Silk. To encourage the planting of mulberry trees and the growing of silk-worms the State of Kansas enacted a law in 1887.1 Ten years later the attempt was abandoned as a failure. Sugar Beets. To encourage the growing of sugar beets in Kansas, a law was passed in 1887 providing for a bounty of two cents a pound for all beet sugar made in the State from beets grown in the State. This gave the industry quite a spurt. In 1891 the bounty claimed and paid was over $50,000. In 1891 the rate of the bounty was cut to of a cent a pound. This "infant industry" was not yet able to walk alone. In a few years the bounty was entirely removed. A further decline in the industry followed, and in 1897 the last piece of beet sugar machinery was sold and sent into Nebraska where the business was still on its 1 Laws of 1887, chapter 231. 2 Laws of 1887, chapter 231. feet. However, in 1901, interest in the sugar beet was again aroused, and so the State Legislature provided a bounty of one dollar a ton on all sugar beets grown in the State. The hope of home sugar factories was abandoned. A limit of $5,000 in any one year was set to the beet bounty. Sugar bounties paid on beet sugar made in Kansas were as follows: Kansas laws were frequently enacted at the request of local districts, to permit them to grant direct aid to agriculture. The following are typical cases: The city of Burlingame, Osage County, was authorized to vote $25,000 in bonds to aid in establishing a woolen mill in that city.3 Smoky Hill Township, McPherson County, was authorized to aid in erecting a flour mill with a subsidy of $6,000.1 All counties of over 30,000 population were authorized to subsidize the construction of starch works up to $41,000 each county.5 Kentucky Township, Jefferson County, was authorized to grant a subsidy to a flour mill to the amount of $10,000.6 Haskell County was authorized to grant a subsidy of $1 an acre for breaking sod in that county, the limit to be $10,000.7 Cimarron Township, Gray County, was authorized to subsidize the building of a flour mill.8 This same legislature authorized ten flour mills and three other private enterprises. The legislature of 1893 authorized two townships to vote $5,000 each in aid of flour mills. The 1895 legislature authorized one township to grant a $3,000 subsidy in aid of a flour mill. The State Auditor's bond register for 1900 shows the following grants: Gray County, $15,000 for a beet sugar mill and $8,000 for a flour mill and $2,000 for a cheese factory; Hamilton County, $4,000 for a flour mill; West Plains township in Meade County, $15,000 for a beet sugar mill. Not only did these subsidized industries all fail, but in many cases the County or District voting the bonds defaulted in the 3 Laws of 1870, chapter 36. 4 Laws of 1872, chapter 85. |