Ke Alakai o Hawaii, Volume IX, Number 29, 27 October 1936 — GOVERNOR HERRING, IOWA REFUTES LANDON'S DATA ON FARMERS' CONDITIONS [ARTICLE]

GOVERNOR HERRING, IOWA REFUTES LANDON'S DATA ON FARMERS' CONDITIONS

(EDITOR'S NOTE—The speech with whieh Governor Alf M, Laiulon of Kansas aceepted the 1936 presidential nominalion of the Republican party caused such wide-spread comment th?oo£hout the nation that the Democratic National Committee decided that it should be discussed in a historjr-making radio broadcast in whieh six Bemoeratic governoi*s gave their vie\vs over a nationwide hook-up. Beeause the views of these governors shou!d be one of interest to every American citizen THE HAWAIĪ DEMOCRAT is priiiting- the series of six gubernatorial addresses in serial form. The fourth of these, printed herewith, was by Governor Clyde Herring of lōwa. The other two speeches will be prmted in stic» ceeding: issues.) f Anyone not well informed might easlly c6riclude from the e'loomy acceptance essay delivered by Governor Lan.:i ii at Topeka the other night that our country is headed straight for ruin. But it will require more than is eontained in this political acceptance speech to convince the citizens of lowa that we are in such a terrible plight. As the Governor of lowa, I think I am in a pretty fair position to judge of conditions in our_great sister state of Kansass, as well as in Iow ? a ? and lam eeiiain there is nothing we need view with alarm either here or there, and I doubt if the citizens of the "Sunflower State" are worrying nearly as mueh as the Governor's speech would indieate. The crops of Kansas and of lowa are pretty mueh alike in quality, quantity, and prices realized. Their pe,ople and our people &pring from the same strain / and exeept for normal differences due to geographical and topo4 graphical variatiōn, think pretty mueh alike. To a great manv farmers> the Landbn notification meeting at Topeka last week brought back recollections of another meetmg in Topeka four years ago. There were good crops in 1932, but they were a mockery when a farmer could not sell them for the cost of production. Moi*tgages were being fōreclosed throughout this IVlississippi Valley. Taxes upon farms were uhpaid. Farm fami]ies were without the necessities of life because thev could not exchange their products for the commodities they needed. Hope was a!most gone. The Hoover administration had turned down everv effective proposal for farm relief; had wreckea farm exports by the passage of the Smoot-Hawdey Tariff Bill, and had refused to halt deflation by a change in monetary policy. Those who gathered before the Kansas State Capital four years ago saw a'new candidate for the Pi:esidency — Franklin D. Roosevelt — stand in the broiling sun for, an hour to outline in detail the program he would follow if ::11.•!He described to that crowd how and why farm «puiw had dropped off. How the drop in farin exports had backed up our surpluses to depress the whole market, ānd ho>v the i\ational government shou!d step in to aid farmers to adjust production to the marls;et heeds. Last week farmer£ saw another candidate for the Presidency upon the rostrum of the Kansas State House — Gov. Alfred M. Landon—accepting the Republ|can nom)nation for President. He told why he should b.e elected to replace Mr-Roosevelt. _ ; lowa farmers and farmers in every other state are bound to be lnterestcd as to what Governor Landon thinks of the farm program that brought over $100,000,000 in cash benefits to his home state of Kansas and nearly doubled the ineome of Kansas farmers from 1932 ,t.o 1935. Apparently Governor Landon doe§n't think mueh of it. He says, in his acceptance speech: "Even beforē it was ruled out by the Supreme Court, the AAA was capably disorganizing American Agriculture. Some of its worst effects continue. By its policies, the administration has taken the American farmer out of Foreign rharkeU and put the Foreign Farmer into the American Market'' This is a strange error for the Governor of a farm State to make. Cannot Governor Landon remember as far back as 1932? īs it possible that he does not remember how Kansas wheat was piled up in 1932 because of the loss pf Foreign Markets resultmg from the Kepublican Tariff Policy? Has he forgotten that wheat exports had dropped from 151,976,000 bushels in 1928 to in 1932? Has he forgotten that wheat was selling ehen on Kansas farms for ōn!y 30 cents? The official records show that Foreign Markets were largēly lostto the American farmer. by 1932 and"that this loss was the cause of Agricultural distress. It was the work of the AAA to trv to elean up this mess Republican Policy had createdr If Governor Landon or any supporter 1 df Ws has any do'ibt=< on this point } I refer them to the annual report of tht Republican Secr.etary of Agriculture, Arthur M. Hyde, made to Presid»nt Herbjert Hoover, on the date of October 31, 1932, long before the New Deal had eome into action, Secrfctary Hyde said: | "Exports of the principal Agricultural products from the United States in the ftecal 1931-32 declined in: value 28 per cent, from those of tWpreceding year, 50 per j cent, from those of 1929-30, and 5° per cent from those of 1928-29, The decline during 1931-J2 carried the value' of the pHneipal agricullural down to about the' level at the beginning of the century. Great surpluses' remained unsold. But for pnee cuts, the surpluses would have been mount»in high." This is the testimony of President Hoover's Secretary of Agriculture that the loss of Foreign Markets occurred bofore, not after the New Dea!, 'and that the major cause of Farm distresses in 1932 was the piliug up of great surpluses that cou!d no longer find a market abroa*d. '* This strange hostility to the AAĀ, whieh saved American farniers from disasters brought on by the !ast Repuhiiean _ Administration and whieh saved Kansas IPamieī'a in particular from baiikruptcy, persbts through Governor Landon's speech. Still sepaking of the AAA he says: "We

must replace thzs futile program w'ith ane that is econ.oca-j and socialiy jright." Just how futile was this New Doai Farm Program? As an lowan, I ean tell best of its effect on lowa farmers, this futile program of whieh Governor Landon speaks heiped to raise hog priees from.j §2.50 in'June of 1932, to §9.10 in June of 1936, to raise| corn prices from 23 cents a bushel to 51 cents and raised lowa cash farm ineome from §277,388,000 in 1932 tO; $486.849,000 in 1935. ; : . I might add that this increase in Farm ineome helped lowa farmers to pay their taxes and aided greatly in balaneing the lowa Budget. Perhaps the aid of the AAA may have had sQmething to do with Budgel; balancing in other States. What does Governor Landon intend to substitute for : the present Farm Program? He makes some vague remarks on soil conservation and closes with a promise to keep the soil conservation program out of politics. Apparently some Kansas farmers should tell the Governor just how this conservation program is now being administered. The farmers in eaeh county elect a county eommittee to administer the conservantioi> program. These committees are elected on a non-partisan basis. I wonder what Governor Landon would substitute for these Farmer Committees. Does he not think farmers are fit to be trusted to administer his program ? Would he substitute men appointed by Washington for the farmers selected by their own neighbors? Is that the way to take the soil conservation program out of politics? Fmal!y Governor Landon promises to "pay cash benefits in order to cUshion our farm families ag?.inst the disastrous effects of price fluctuations and tp protect their standard of living." This of course is what the Roosevelt Administration has already been doing, but only a part of what it has been doing. We have ali heard the old advice that a b'ird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Governor Landon is apparently trying to persuade the Farmers that two birds in hand are not'nearly so good as one scrawny bird up in the top of the next tree. He promises to do in the next four years, if elected, a part of what the New Deal has already, not. only prom[sed, but actually accomplished. It is the old difference between promise and performance. Governor Landon promises, if elected, to ,do about. half as mueh for the farmer as the New Deal h,as already done, Since May, 1933 to July 1, 1936, 44,743 lowa Farmers have had their distressed farms refinanced through the Federal Farm Credit Administration. §204,905,000 has been loaned to these Farmers at the lowest interest rate in the history of Farm Mortgages for this purpose of refinancing. 1 Fārm Implement manufacturers located in lowa and upon its borders are working night and day tp fīll order« for Farm Machinery. Automobile Manufacturers are breaking record§ as to delivery of new automobiles in lowa. Points at whieh Farmers ti*ade throughout this State are reporting business condītions and collections better than for many years. No one prospers in lowa unless the Farmer prospers. The facts and figures herein stated indicate that we are well on the way out of the depression, and the producers of Ipwa cannot be deceived as to the reason for this improvem§nt. The New Deal Progranx has given to us a fair break, It has placed the Farm Producer upon an equality with the producers of other sections and that k, all we ask. We have performance, not pr.oniises, and we decline to be detoured down the side i;oads of political promises. With the eommon sense and intellijgen€e whieh has always characterized the Citizenship of lowa, we shall vote for the eoniinuanee of Franklin D. Roosevelt iu the White House.