The CHAIRMAN. It was in the power of the Grain Corp ration to pay the farmers 50 per cent or 100 per cent more than they did. They hid the power, and had more power than now can be given any other organization.

Mr. SINCLAIR. They took from the home farmers to sell cheaply to foreigners. The CHAIRMAN. The object of the corporation was to sell wheat at the lowest possible price, so as to successfully prosecute the war. Profits were not considered to the farmers or anybody else. The purpose was to aid in the successful prosecution of the war, and when I said it made money, it was not for the purpose of criticising the corporation.

Mr. SINCLAIR. They bought wheat for $2.20 a bushel, and sold it to Europe away below the market price that it was in Liverpool and London.

Mr. KINCHELOE. We have now been more than five minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry to have used up your time, it was my fault.
You may proceed, Mr. Marsh.

Mr. MARSH. There is one further matter, the farmers' foreign market. That is an important feature. This bill is an outgrowth of the Norris bill creating a farm products export corporation, and the two authors amplified it, for the farmer is absolutely up against it in getting his export market to-day. While we must look after the need of the domestic consumers, and hope to save them money in buying farm products, nevertheless the farmer must watch out for his foreign market, and realize that the Department of Commerce and other great commercial organizations are developing the foreign markets for manufactured products, and I think I am correct in saying that there is not any Government or private agency in the United States to-day which is devoting anything like the attention to deveolping foreign markets for farm products that is being devoted to developing foreign markets for manufactured products. I believe the bill will be a help to farmers along that line.

As to the credit, I thoroughly agree with those that say it is a problem, when we suggest loaning any more money to any foreign country, but I submit that the best way to get people in Germany and France and Italy and England back to work is to get them food, and one of the best ways to get them food and other farm products at a reasonable price is through this bill. Through this bill we can open up friendly relations with a lot of those countries, particularly in view of the fact that an efficient administration of the bill will enable those consumers' cooperatives and Government agencies to buy our farm products at a cheaper price than they can possibly get them through the present speculative methods used in the sale of farm products, and I believe that will hasten the reestablishment of friendly international relations. I thank you for hearing me in this matter.

Mr. SINCLAIR. You have made a very good statement, and we appreciate having you come here.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now take a recess until 10 o'clock to-morrow. (Whereupon, at 12.20 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Tuesday, January 9, 1923, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D. C., Tuesday, January 9, 1923. The committee met at 10.25 o'clock a. m., Hon. Gilbert N. Haugen (chairman) presiding.

There were present Messrs. Haugen (chairman), Voigt, Tincher, Williams, Sinclair, Thompson, Clague, Clarke, Kincheloe, and Jones.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. Mr. Atkeson, we will be pleased to hear from you this morning.

Mr. WILLIAMS. This committee always listens to the doctor with great pleasure and profit, I am sure. I know I do.

Mr. CLARKE. Yes: I do also.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Doctor Atkeson.

STATEMENT OF MR. T. C. ATKESON, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL GRANGE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. ATKESON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, based on one of the questions asked yesterday by some one of the witnesses, I perhaps ought to say to you gentlemen that the grange is a different type of organization from any of the other farm organizations

I have been a

or near farm organizations. It was organized in this city 56 years ago. member of it myself, about 44 years, and we must have had some faith in it and in its usefulness and functioning or we ought to have been chloroformed a good while ago.

It is a close corporation, in a way. It is a fraternity, rather than a loosely constructed farm organization. Three black balls keep anybody out, and it keeps a good many people out, because we have found among farmers, like many other people, a good many people that the Lord forgot to do something for and that we were unable to do anything for. I find people like that, possibly, in Congress.

But our procedure is one of interest is the reason I am taking your time to refer to this matter. We have about 8,000 subordinate organizations in the country. They meet, on an average, twice a month. They must meet at least once a month. Many of them meet every week. And the first organization effected in the country, which was at Fredonia, N. Y., is still in operation, with a membership of about 800 members and a grange hall that cost them, before war prices, more than $20,000. The Grange is an established institution.

Now, in these 8,000 subordinate organizations, if they meet on an average of twice a month, there are 16,000 meetings of farmers every month, and when you multiply that by 12 you see that our people, from Maine to California, get together a good many times during the 12 months.

Mr. KINCHELOE. What is your total membership?

Mr. ATKESON. The total membership we do not boast much about, but perhaps I might in answer to this question make a statement that can not be disputed. There are some other organizations that we get along nicely and smoothly with, because we are not in competition in any way. We are a different sort of institution. But it has been said by the representatives of some of these organizations that they counted their membership in millions. It is just as easy to say that you have 3,000,000 members as it is to say that you have 300. That statement reminds me of the story of the fellow that was out bird hunting, and he came in rather disposed to boast and said that he had killed 99 birds, and when somebody asked him, "Why don't you make it a hundred?" He said, "Do you think I would tell a lie for 1 bird?" [Laughter.] Now then, as a matter of fact--and I think I can give you facts based on the same calculation we think we carry from year to year a drag of membership of about 10 per cent of the actual paid-up members. On that basis we have an absolute membership in this country of about 750,000.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Is that confined to farmers only?

Mr. ATKESON. Did you say to farmers only?

Mr. KINCHELOE. Yes; is it confined to farmers only, or does the membership consist of farmers only?

Mr. ATKESON. Farmers and their wives and children down to 14 years of age. There is another organization-and I have just seen their figures, and they tell you Congressmen that they have four and a half million of members, and the figures show that giving them the 10 per cent drag on the paid-up membership, that they have about 450,000 members. In other words, beyond any question, I think we can establish on their own figures and our figures that our organization has about 300,000 more members than any other farm organization in this country. I would just as soon that were left out of the record, but I give it to you for what it is worth. Mr. TINCHER. I think it is appropriate to go in the record, in view of the attack made here yesterday.

Mr. CLARKE. I think so, too.

Mr. KINCHELOE. In view of the statement of Mr. Marsh yesterday, I think it ought to go into the record.

Mr. ATKESON. Very well. Now, in these subordinate organizations of farmers, meeting in schoolhouses and in homes all over the country for over half a century, these economic questions have been discussed by these farmer organizations. They are not the product of these hard times, because we have been through other hard times, as we are trying to get through these hard times.

Now then, these subordinate organizations meet, we will say, once a week, or once a month, and once a year the State organization meets, which is made up of delegates from these subordinate organizations. The conclusions of the subordinate organizations, through these numerous meetings, come up in the form of resolutions, or in reports of one kind and another, to the State organization, and they meet in all the States once a year. We have 35 States organized. At one time the cotton States were organized, but they are not organized now. We are not organized in the Gulf States.

And these matters are considered in the State grange, and then they go up to the National Grange, which is composed of delegates from the State granges, and the sessions are never less than 10 days. In Wichita, Kans., in November, we had about 10,000 people present. And these national granges are always well attended. At Boston two years ago we had certainly over 15,000 members present, the largest meeting of farmers ever held in the world, I think, up to that time.

Now, we were in Wichita for 10 days, coming up from the subordinate organizations, through the State organizations to this national body, a representative body of men and women. And these propositions were submitted in the form of resolutions, which were referred to committees and were considered, in the limited time, carefully, as you gentlemen consider the problems that come before Congress; and the committees reported. Sometimes minority reports were presented, and sometimes the original resolutions were amended, or substitutes were adopted in lieu of the resolutions reported. But this body of men and women farmers, in communities of the farmers all over the country, deliberately passed on these questions on all the questions that come before them, and they make mistakes just like other men and women do. But it is impossible for somebody back home, some genius of reform, to write out a long report or a set of resolutions, and jump up and make a jealous, bombastic speech on it and put it through. You can not put a resolution or report through our organization in that way. It is impossible. And we take some time for deliberation.

The

Mr. VOIGT. Just what do you mean by that statement? Do you mean that discussion in your general meeting is not permitted on resolutions that are introduced? Mr. ÅTKESON. The resolutions are referred to committees for discussion. committees consider them, and they are reported back, and then they are open for discussion by the session itself. It is very much like the procedure in Congress. The fact of the matter is, our whole scheme is based on the American Congress, beginning back 56 years ago.

Now, I have perhaps taken more time than was necessary about this organization that I represent, but I wanted to present that to you.

Now, I am here as a representative and not as a propagandist in any sense of the word. We send out twice a week a press bulletin, which confines itself, if any of you gentlemen have seen it, simply to news, without even attempting to color the news, from Washington, and in the statements I make before congressional committees, I only attempt to present to you gentlemen and the other committees the commission that I have from this organization. In other words, I am their representative, and am not here to tell them what they ought to be thinking about. They have told me, through this machinery of organization, what they want me to tell you gentlemen that they have said to me, and I would not dare take a position on any question that I was not commissioned to take by the organization that I represent.

And perhaps it would be better for some so-called farm representatives if they depended on the commission that they have from their organization.

Mr. VOIGT. Well then, Doctor, any views that you express before this committee are not your personal views?

Mr. ATKESON. Not my personal views at all. I say to my organization, "If you want to say that black is white, I will go down to Congress and convince them black is white, if I can." That is, I am here as a representative, and do not have any personal views. That is, I do not mean to say I do not have any, but I do not present them. If some member of the committee would ask me what I think personally, I would insist on its going into the record as a matter of personal opinion, or as my personal view, and not my view in a representative capacity.

Mr. VOIGT. Well, does it sometimes happen that your views differ from the views you express?

Mr. ATKESON. Quite frequently that is true, but you do not find it out in the committee, if I can help it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Are the views you are about to express to-day your views or those of your great organization?

Mr. ATKESON. Now, there is another thing about this matter of legislation that has interested me a good while. It is practically impossible for you gentlemen to know what the effect or all of the effects of any proposed legislation will be when put into operation. We have had some rather remarkable illustrations of things working differently from what we anticipated they might work. Our grape growers, a few years ago, when we instituted Volsteadism, felt that they were going to have to grub up all their grapevines, and that they would be ruined, especially my friends up in Chautauqua County, and in the western section of New York; and the California grape growers felt that prohibition would ruin them.

Previous to the institution of prohibition, $25 a ton was the top-notch price for grapes, especially in northern Ohio and in the New York grape-growing sections. The very next crop after the institution of Volsteadism, immediately after Volsteadism went into vogue, grapes went up as high as $200 a ton.

Mr. VOIGT. How do you account for that rise in price of grapes?

Mr. ATKESON. I am sure you Congressmen can account for that as easily as I can. I am sure it was a fact.

Mr. VOIGT. I just wanted to see whether your views and mine coincided on that.

Mr. ATKESON. It was probably making them into wine, or something. But the grape growers thought it had ruined their business, but it did not.

Mr. TINCHER. They came here and asked for an appropriation to help them. Mr. ATKESON. Just why it did not ruin them, we might have a difference of opinion about, but probably we would not have.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The argument was also made that it would ruin the corn farmers. Mr. ATKESON. Yes; some thought it would reduce the price of corn. Maybe it did

in some ways.

Mr. CLARKE. Do you not think it affected in an unfavorable way the barley growers, and the price they received?

Mr. ATKESON. Yes; I think so. In connection with the grape question, it reminds me of a story I heard when I was a boy of an old gentleman in the neighborhood who sometimes drank too much, and who was at a country logrolling, and he backed up to a log to sit down on it, but he got a little too close to the log, and sat down on the other side of it. He got up slowly and said, “Boys, it is awful easy to be mistaken." And so it is about legislation. It is awful easy to be mistaken as to how the thing will function. I am sure in my own mind that that is true of some of the proponents of price-fixing and stabilization and efforts to control prices by artificial legislative means; that they are just as apt to be mistaken as to how the thing will work, if they attempt it, as they are to be satisfied with the result. I don't know.

Now, here is what our organization says on that question. A year ago it said this: "In war time price fixing may have been necessary; in peace time the grange regards price fixing as unjustifiable and indefensible."

Mr. KINCHELOE. Doctor, would you mind saying to the committee whether that excerpt which you have just read from the resolutions of your organization coincide with your personal views about the matter?

Mr. ATKESON. Well, I think I can go with them. But here is another resolution which was passed at Wichita last November.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Have you read all of the resolution on that subject of price fixing, or is that just an excerpt?

Mr. ATKESON. That is the whole resolution. We furnished all the Members of Congress with this booklet last year. But I have cut from the proceedings the action of the body at the last session. [Reading:]

"The National Grange opposes the basic economic error of a Government guaranty of earnings or profits in any form, at any time, to any private industry; and favors the repeal of any such guaranties which may now be in existence.'

Mr. VOIGT. Is that aimed at the Esch-Cummins law?

Mr. ATKESON. That was adopted at the Wichita meeting.

Mr. VOIнT. I say, is it aimed at the Esch-Cummins law?

Mr. ATKESON. If there is any guaranty in that law, it applies to it.
Mr. JONES. And probably the ship subsidy bill, too?

Mr. ATKESON. Unquestionably.

Mr. KINCHELOE. It applies to any matter where there is a subsidy or a guaranty. Mr. ATKESON. Yes; it is as broad as the English language can make it, and it is opposed to a Government guaranty of earnings or profits in any form, at any time, to any private industry. We said that six weeks ago. That is what the organization said. It does not make any difference what I say. That is what the organization says, and that is what I am here to tell you on that subject.

Mr. CLARKE. May I intrude this question there, Doctor: You took that action as a grange, of which I am also a member, and you took action in favor of a protective tariff?

Mr. ATKESON. No; we never did take a position in favor of a protective tariff. Let me tell you what we did do, and what position we did take on that. And this has been repeated every year, in one form or another, for nearly a half century. It is right here. [Reading:] "Tariff protection for agriculture: The grange has long declared for the principles of exact justice to agriculture in all matters of tariff legislation and now demands that the product of the farms be given tariff protection equal to the protection given products of other industry."

Now, we have been getting off on that foot for about a half century.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That leaves each individual member to be in favor of the principle or against it as he chooses.

Mr. ATKESON. In a discussion of the tariff question before some committees, I said this: That we accepted the verdict of the people two years ago as favoring a protective tariff policy; and whether they did or not, the party in power was going to produce a protective tariff bill if they produced anything, and then we insisted on the highest possible protective tariff we could get on agricultural products, if we

could get any. If the policy of the country had been free trade we would have insisted we could stand it if the other fellow could.

Mr. JONES. Your attitude is that a tariff should be uniform?

Mr. ATKESON. Yes; that agricultural products should not be discriminated against in a tariff law, whatever it might be.

Mr. KINCHELOE. In view of the fact that your organization, as you have read there, has gone on record, in their national convention, against the principle of price fixing and price stabilization and subsidies of any kind for private interestsMr. ATKESON (interposing). I do not quite follow you.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I say, in view of the fact that your organization, as you have shown, has gone on record, in their national convention, against the principle of price fixing and price stabilization and subsidies of any kind for private interests, do you not think then that your organization, as already expressed there, would be against the principle of the Sinclair bill and the Little bill?

Mr. ATKESON. I haven't any doubt of it.

Mr. VOIGT. Well, the Sinclair bill does not contain any price-fixing principles, does it?

Mr. KINCHELOE. The Sinclair bill means price stabilization, if it means anything. Mr. ATKESON. I say, I would be willing to enjoy these things. I did not come here particularly because I was anxious to make any statement before this committee on that subject. Not knowing what the effect of these efforts to do something to promote the interests of agriculture would be, I hesitated to oppose any measure that somebody honestly and sincerely believes might help to remedy the present rather unfortunate condition of agriculture in the country.

Mr. SINCLAIR. Doctor, do you not think that if a Government corporation was created that would absorb the surplus products it would have a beneficial effect for the farmer?

Mr. ATKESON. I want to say for the Little bill, before I pass on

Mr. SINCLAIR (interposing). Well, do you not care to answer my question?
Mr. ATKESON. I didn't quite hear you.

Mr. SINCLAIR. I asked you if you did not think if a Government corporation was created with $100,000,000 capital that would buy or absorb surplus products, do you not think that would have a beneficial effect on the prices?

Mr. ATKESON. I think it would have a very decided effect on the prices, but I doubt very much whether it would be to any advantage to the farmers.

Mr. SINCLAIR. Well, it would have an increasing effect on prices, would it not? Mr. ATKESON. Just let me read you a story here from Wallace's Farmer that I clipped this morning from last Saturday's paper. [Reading:]

"The semisocialistic government in Germany has been very hard on farmers whose livelihood depended largely on the price of wheat. Samuel Adams-" Whom I happen to know and some of you gentlemen know—

"who spent some time in Germany this past summer, says that the law required the German farmer to sell a large portion of his grain to a government grain board at a fixed price which at that time was equivalent to about 12 cents a bushel. A few weeks later the mark dropped to half its former value and the German farmers were being compelled to sell their wheat at the equivalent of 6 or 7 cents a bushel. Of course the farmers did their best to get this terribly unfair situation remedied, but the united socialists' parties served notice that they would overthrow the government if the farmers were given any increase.

"It is to be hoped that organized labor in the United States will preserve a much broader gauged attitude toward the farmers than has been the case with organized labor in Germany. Our observations of the leaders of union labor in this country, however, have been such as to lead us to think that their sole interest in agriculture is to get the votes necessary to put across national legislation favorable to labor." Now, then, there are two parties to every effort to stabilize prices or to fix prices. It is the seller and the buyer. In practically all these prpositions it has been in the mind of their proponents to increase the prices above where they are in the existing markets. That is in everybody's mind-the mind of the introducer of every one of these bills, and they have all introduced them in good faith. Wheat is too low; the prices of farm products are too low. Agriculture is passing through some very disastrous experiences. And I think everybody every Member of Congress-would like to see the conditions bettered, but they do not know how to better them, and I am sure I do not, and I am sure if I thought I did there would be somebody immediately saying that I did not, but he did.

Mr. JONES. Just there, Doctor Atkeson, in the clipping you read it refers to the law in Germany which fixes the prices, and at a very low price. And I know of no