Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-05T03:47:10.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Choosing Sides: The Creation of an Agricultural Policy Network in Congress, 1919–1932

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

John Mark Hansen
John Mark Hansen
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1930, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, the last of the major tariff bills that redistributed millions of dollars from consumers to domestic manufacturers. The Smoot-Hawley bill, E. E. Schattschneider observed, arose not from a process that was open and attentive to all but from “a free private enterprise in pressure politics which administered itself”, a process accessible only to protected industrialists and their congressional and bureaucratic allies. The outlines of public policy, he concluded, mirrored the membership of this “private enterprise”: “The nature of public policy is the result of ‘effective demands’ upon the government”.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 2 , Spring 1987 , pp. 183 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I owe many thanks to Brian Balogh, Jeffrey Berry, Robert Browning, Michael D. Cohen, Louis Galambos, Karen Orren, Steven J. Rosenstone, Stephen Skowronek, Jennifer Sosin, Edward R. Tufte, Peter VanDoren, R. Kent Weaver, a reviewer, seminar participants at numerous universities and meetings, and especially David R. Mayhew. I owe thanks, too, to the Brookings Institution for its generous support.

1. Schattschneider, E. E., Politics, Pressures and the Tariff (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1935), 30–31, 4Google Scholar.

2. Freeman, J. Lieper, The Political Process (New York: Random House, 1965), p. 33Google Scholar; McConnell, Grant, Private Power and American Democracy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), 244, 211Google Scholar; Walker, Jack L., “Setting the Agenda in the U.S. Senate”, British Journal of Political Science 7 (08 1977): 423–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kingdom, John W., Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1984)Google Scholar; Lowi, Theodore J., The End of Liberalilsm, 2nd ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1979)Google Scholar; Cater, Douglass, Power in Washington (New York: Random House, 1969)Google Scholar; Ripley, Randall A. and Franklin, Grace B., Congress, the Bureaucracy and Public Policy (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Griffith, Ernest S., Congress (New York: New York University Press, 1951)Google Scholar; Heclo, Hugh, “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment”, in King, Anthony, ed., The New American Political System (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1978), 87–124Google Scholar; Dodd, Lawrence C. and Schott, Richard L., Congress and the Administrative State (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979)Google Scholar.

3. Truman, David B., The Governmental Process, 2nd ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), 322–40Google Scholar; Dodd and Schott, Congress, chap. 2; Freeman, Political Process, 1–26; Cater, Power; McConnell, Private Power; Lowi, End of Liberalism. For a good review, see Hamm, Keith E., “Patterns of Influence among Committees, Agencies, and Interest Groups”, Legislative Studies Quarterly 8 (08 1983): 379–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Truman, Governmental Process, chap. 9. Consequently, my definitions, methods, and theoretical approach differ from recent treatments of policy networks as information-passing and -consuming structures. See Laumann, Edward O., Knoke, David, and Kim, Yong-Hak, “An Organizational Approach to State Policy Formation”, American Sociological Review 50 (02 1985): 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knoke, David and Laumann, Edward O., “The Social Organization of National Policy Domains”, in Marsden, Peter V. and Lin, Nan, eds., Social Structure and Network Analysis (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1982), 255–315Google Scholar; and Gais, Thomas L., Peterson, Mark A., and Walker, Jack L., “Interest Groups, Iron Triangles and Representative Institutions in American National Government”, British Journal of Political Science 14 (04 1984): 161–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The theory draws heavily on the economics literature on agency problems. For good introductions, see Moe, Terry M., “The New Economics of Information”, American Journal of Political Science 28 (11 1984): 739–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Williamson, Oliver E., Markets and Hierarchies (New York: Free Press, 1975), chap. 2Google Scholar.

5. Cf. Jensen, Michael C., “Organization Theory and Methodology”, Accounting Review 58 (04 1983): 319–39Google Scholar.

6. Close association with lobbying groups is not only a means of transcending interparty competition, however. In times when parties are riven by faction, developing bases of support independent of parties and ideologies is an obvious survival tactic. See Jacobson, Gary C. and Kernell, Samuel, Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Schattschneider, E. E., The Semi-sovereign People (New York: Dryden Press, 1960)Google Scholar.

7. Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984), 126–32Google ScholarPubMed. Thus, the development of policy networks was closely related to the devolution of authority from congressional leadership to committees. Before the creation of a jurisdictional committee system with seniority rights to seats, the possibilities for group and issue recurrence, and by implication for close relationships between legislators and groups, were remote.

8. Williamson, Markets, 9, 28, 39–40; Williamson, Oliver E., “The Economics of Organization”, American Journal of Sociology 87 (1981): 548–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hannan, Michael T. and Freeman, John, “The Population Ecology of Organizations”, American Journal of Sociology 82 (1977): 949–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Ripley and Franklin, Congress, p. 94; McConnell, Private Power, chap. 7; Lowi, End of Liberalism, chap. 4; Lowi, Theodore J., “How the Farmers Get What They Want”, Reporter, 21 05 1964, 34–37Google Scholar.

10. Truman, Governmental Process, chap. 9.

11. Schattschneider, Tariff, p. 39; Hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture, “Wheat and Feed Grains”, 89th Congress, 1st sess., 1965, 1136; Marsh, Benjamin C., Lobbyist for the People (Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1953), 166Google Scholar.

12. Benedict, Murray R., Farm Policies of the United States, 1790–1950 (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1953)Google Scholar; Fite, Gilbert C., George N. Peek and the Fight for Farm Parity (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1954)Google Scholar; Christensen, Alice M., “Agricultural Pressure and Governmental Response in the United States, 1919–1929” (Ph.D. diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1936)Google Scholar; Shideler, James H., Farm Crisis, 1919–1923 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1957)Google Scholar; McConnell, Grant C., The Decline of Agrarian Democracy (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1953)Google Scholar.

13. Blaisdell, Donald C.. Government and Agriculture (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1940), 36Google Scholar; McConnell, Agrarian Democracy, chaps. 1–7. Cf. Bonnen, James T., “Observations on the Nature of National Agricultural Policy Decision Processes, 1946–76”, in Peterson, Trudy Huskamp, Farmers, Bureaucrats, and Middlemen (Washington: Howard University Press, 1980), 309–27Google Scholar.

14. Christensen, “Agricultural Pressure”, pp. 13–15; Marquis, J. Clyde, “The Radical Minority”, Country Gentlemen (hereafter CG), 24 04 1920, 26Google Scholar; McConnell, Agrarian Democracy, chaps. 1–6.

15. Shideler, Farm Crisis, p. 24; Fisher, Commodore B., The Farmers' Union (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1920)Google Scholar; Wiest, Edward, Agricultural Organization in the United States (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1923)Google Scholar; Guth, James L., “The National Board of Farm Organizations”, Agricultural History 48 (07 1974), 418–40Google Scholar.

16. Marquis, J. Clyde, “Farmers Can Have What They Want”, CG, 1 11 1919, 9Google Scholar.

17. Gardner, Charles M., The Grange (Washington: National Grange, 1949), 93Google Scholar; Atkeson, T. C., “Pioneering in Agriculture”, CG, 14 02 1925, 49Google Scholar; Harger, Charles Moreau, “Mr. Farmer Considers His ‘Bloc,’” Independent, 24 06 1922, 541Google Scholar.

18. Carleton, William G., “Gray Silver and the Rise of the Farm Bureau”, Current History 28 (06 1955): 343Google Scholar; Atkeson, T. C., “Pioneering in Agriculture”, CG, 21 02 1925, 12Google Scholar; “The Grange on Politics”, Hoard's Dairyman, 6 August 1920, 92.

19. Marquis, J. Clyde, “The Farm Bureau's Mistake”, CG, 7 05 1921, 15Google Scholar; Hearings before the House Committee on Banking and Currency, “Farm Organizations”, 66th Congress, 3rd sess., 1921; Howard, Robert P., James R. Howard and the Farm Bureau (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1983)Google Scholar, 136ff.

20. Howard, James R. Howard, p. 131; Johnson, William, “Charting the Federation's Course”, CG, 24 07 1920, 15Google Scholar.

21. O'Brien, Harry R., “The Farmers' Woes”, Saturday Evening Post, 22 10 1921, 21Google Scholar.

22. Moreover, the House bloc had on its rolls only four of the twenty-one members of the Agriculture Committee (plus two future members), none of them senior. The Senate bloc, however, constituted a majority of the Senate committee. See “Howard Explains Agricultural Bloc”, American Farm Bureau Federation Weekly News Letter, 5 January 1922, 1; “The Agricultural Bloc”, Agricultural Review, January 1922, 11; Christensen, “Agricultural Pressure”, 62; and Kile, Orville M., The Farm Bureau through Three Decades (Baltimore: Waverly Press, 1948), 101nGoogle Scholar.

23. Barnes, John K., “The Man Who Runs the Farm Bloc”, World's Work, 11 1922, 52Google Scholar; Knappen, Theodore M., “Farmers in the Saddle”, Independent, 12 11 1921, 151Google Scholar.

24. “The Farmer's Party in Congress”, Literary Digest, 2 July 1921, 14; Montgomery, Alastair, “Ferreted Facts for Farmers”, Successful Farming, 07 1921, 8Google Scholar.

25. Blythe, Stuart O., “Progress in Congress”, CG, 03 1926, 17Google Scholar; Welliver, Judson C., “The Agricultural Crisis and the ‘Bloc’”, American Review of Reviews, 02 1922, 165Google Scholar; Anderson, Sydney, “The Latest Thing in Blocs”, CG, 31 12 1921, 1Google Scholar; Barnes, “The Man Who Runs the Farm Bloc”, p. 59; Capper, Arthur, The Agricultural Bloc (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1922), 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Farm Bloc”, Literary Digest, 24 December 1921, 11.

26. Shideler, Farm Crisis, 178–79; Capper, Agricultural Bloc, 146.

27. McConnell, Agrarian Democracy, 58; “Farm Bloc Stays”, New York Times (hereafter NYT), 17 February 1922, 28; “Congress and the Farmer”, Wallaces' Farmer (hereafter WF), 2 September 1921, 1110.

28. “The Farm Bloc”, Literary Digest, 10.

29. “The Farmer and His Troubles”, Current History, November 1921, 237, 235; “Doing Something for the Farmer”, Literary Digest, 13 October 1923, 14; Friday, David, “The Recovery of Agriculture”, American Review of Reviews, 08 1923, 182Google Scholar; “Getting the Farmer Back on His Feet”, WF, 14 December 1923, 1671; Hoover, Herbert C., “Some Notes on Agricultural Readjustment and the High Cost of Living”, Saturday Evening Post, 10 04 1920, 4Google Scholar; Winters, Donald L., Henry Cantwell Wallace as Secretary of Agriculture, 1921–1924 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970), 71Google Scholar.

30. Anderson, “Latest Thing”, 2, 21.

31. Shideler, Farm Crisis, 30.

32. “Doing Something for the Farmer”, Literary Digest, 14.

33. “Republicans Facing Fight to Hold House”, NYT, 7 May 1922, 11:1; “Apathy of Voters Clouds Election”, NYT, 5 November 1922, 1; Harger, Charles Moreau, “Will Producers Stage a Revolt”? Independent, 14 10 1922, 199–200Google Scholar.

34. Rowell, Chester H., “Why the Middle West Went Radical”, World's Work, 06 1923, 612–22Google Scholar; Rowell, Chester H., “The Political Cyclone in North Dakota”, World's Work, 07 1923, 265–74Google Scholar; Rowell, Chester H., “La Follette, Shipstead, and the Embattled Farmers”, World's Work, 08 1923, 408–20Google Scholar; Rowell, Chester H., “Brookhart, Howell, and ‘Brother Charlie’ Bryan”, World's Work, 09 1923, 478–85Google Scholar; “Panicky Old Guard Senators”, NYT, 28 May 1922, VII: 4; “New Personalities in the Senate”, NYT, 12 November 1922, IX: 1; Neprash, Jerry A., The Brookhart Campaigns in Iowa (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932)Google Scholar; Luthin, Reinhard H., “Smith Wildman Brookhart of Iowa”, Agricultural History 25 (10 1951): 187–97Google Scholar.

35. “East Gave Democrats Most Gains in House”, NYT, 15 November 1922, 2; Kiplinger, Willard M., “Future of Farm Bloc a Washington Riddle”, NYT, 18 05 1924, VII: 20Google Scholar; Roberts, Roy A., “Windbags and Ostriches”, CG, 14 10 1922, 11Google Scholar.

36. Poe, Clarence, “The World's News”, Progressive Farmer, Raleigh, ed. (hereafter PF), 2 12 1922, 1011Google Scholar; Roberts, Roy A., “Everybody Loves the Farmer”, CG, 6 01 1922, 13Google Scholar; “Washington Dazed by Big Reversal”, NYT, 9 November 1922, 1; Kiplinger, “Future of Farm Bloc”, VII: 20; Winters, Wallace, 90; Wilson, Joan Hoff, “Herbert Hoover's Agricultural Policies, 1921–1928”, in Hawley, Ellis W., Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1981): 142nGoogle Scholar.

37. “Price Fixing and the Farm Bloc”, WF, 3 March 1922, 296.

38. Hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture, “Stabilizing Prices of Farm Products”, 67th Congress, 2nd sess., Serial O, 1922 (hereafter Hearings, 1922), 133, 142–44, 25–26.

39. Hearings, 1922, 139; Johnson, William, “Can the Government Save the Country?” CG, 5 05 1923, 42Google Scholar.

40. “What Is the Matter with the Export Plan?” WF, 11 January 1924, 47; “Farm Relief Plan at Washington”, WF, 18 January 1924, 92; Christensen, “Agricultural Pressure”, 149.

41. “National Grange Annual Meeting”, Hoard's Dairyman, 7 December 1923, 634; “Committee to Act on Export Bill”, WF, 7 January 1927, 6.

42. O'Brien, Harry R., “A Million Who'll Stick”, CG, 10 03 1923, 11Google Scholar; Tontz, Robert L., “Membership in the General Farmer's Organizations”, Agricultural History 38 (1964): 143–57Google Scholar; Hansen, John Mark, “The Political Economy of Group Membership”, American Political Science Review 79 (03 1985): 83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Membership Paid to the American Farm Bureau Federation”, mimeo, American Farm Bureau Federation, 1982, 262.

43. Winters, Wallace, 259–67.

44. Christensen, “Agricultural Pressure”, 145; Winters, Wallace, 25–26, 53.

45. Fite, George N. Peek, 64, 100.

46. Fite, Gilbert C., “Gilbert N. Haugen”, in Schacht, John N., ed., Three Progressives from Iowa (Iowa City: Center for the Study of the Recent History of the United States, 1980), 1–14Google Scholar; Benedict, Farm Policies, 183n.

47. Genung, A. B., The Agricultural Depression Following World War I and Its Political Consequences (Ithaca, N.Y.: Northeast Farm Foundation, 1954), 27Google Scholar; Lord, Russell, The Wallaces of Iowa (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1947), 241Google Scholar; “Wheat, Corn, and Capper”, Independent, 16 January 1926, 61; Fite, “Gilbert N. Haugen.”

48. Fite, “Gilbert N. Haugen”, 8; “The Export Plan”, WF, 11 January 1924, 44; “What Is the Matter with the Export Plan?” WF, 47.

49. Hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture, “McNary-Haugen Export Bill”, 68th Congress, 1st sess., Serial E, 1924 (hereafter Hearings, 1924), 395, 398, 561; Hearings, 1922, 78–86.

50. Hearings, 1924, 402, 701.

51. Hearings, 1924, 313, 490, 9–13, 550; Hearings, 1922, 82.

52. Hearings, 1924, 451, 470, 686–91, 156–57.

53. Hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture, “Agricultural Relief”, 69th Congress, 1st sess., Serial C, 1926 (hereafter Hearings, 1926), 372, 162, 121.

54. Hearings, 1926, 584–85, 161.

55. Hearings, 1926, 604–05, 781–84.

56. Hearings, 1926, 707, 825–27.

57. Hearings, 1926, 1227, 1349.

58. “Farmers Worried over Legislation”, NYT, 14 March 1926, II: 1; Christensen, “Aagricultural Pressure”, 219.

59. Genung, Agricultural Depression, 36; Blythe, Stuart O., “‘Brass Tacks,’” CG, 11 10 1924, 6Google Scholar; Wilcox, E. V., “The Farmer and Democracy”, CG, 11 10 1924, 7Google Scholar.

60. Hearings, 1924, 403; Englund, Eric, “The Dilemma of the Corn Belt”, World's Work, 11 1926, 44Google Scholar; “Differ on Farm Bill”, NYT, 15 November 1924, 2.

61. Nourse, E. G., “The Agricultural Outlook”, Rural America, 12 1925, 5Google Scholar; Wallace, H. A., “Three Roads to Better Times”, WF, 23 07 1926, 988Google Scholar; Hibbard, B. H., “What About the Surplus?” PF, 3 04 1926, 438Google Scholar.

62. Brookhart, Smith W., “The Plight of the Farmer”, Nation, 7 04 1926, 367Google Scholar; “Farmers to Stress Relief”, NYT 5 December 1926, 15.

63. Wallace, H. A., “Re-forming the Battle Lines”, WF, 18 07 1924, 985Google Scholar; Hirth, William, “American Council of Agriculture,” WF, 20 06 1924, 897Google Scholar; Christensen, “Agricultural Pressure,” p. 151.

64. Hearings, 1926, 835–36.

65. Hearings, 1924, 418.

66. Thompson, Sam H., “The Battle for Equality,” Bureau Farmer, 09 1929, 8Google Scholar; “Corn Growers Plan Fight in Capital,” NYT, 29 January 1926, 9.

67. “What He Saw in the Washington, D.C., Office of the A.F.B.F.,” American Farm Bureau Federation Weekly News Letter, 9 October 1924, 1; Murphy, Donald R., “Farm Bureau Backs Export Plan,” WF, 19 12 1924, 1633Google Scholar.

68. Milton, George Fort, “The Revolt of the Western Farmer,” Independent, 22 05 1926, 597Google Scholar; Genung, Agricultural Depression, p. 38; Wallace, H. A., “Farm Bureau Votes for Export Plan,” WF, 18 12 1925, 1665Google Scholar; Kile, Farm Bureau, 53.

69. “Farm Bloc May Reorganize in Congress,” WF, 25 December 1925, 1696; [W. I. Drummond], “That Farm Bureau Upheaval,” Agricultural Review, January 1926, 2.

70. Blythe, Stuart O., “Who Do the Farmers Want for President?” CG, 7 06 1924, 33Google Scholar; Davis, Elmer, “Power of La Follette Group Still Doubtful,” NYT 24 02 1924, VIII: 10Google Scholar; “La Follette Hurries Back to Washington,” NYT, 31 May 1924, 9.

71. “Bitter Fight Ahead on Farmers' Bill,” NYT, 30 March 1924, IX: 6; “Republicans Regain Grip on Congress,” NYT, 6 November 1924, 1; “The Latest Edition of the Farmers' Revolt,” New Republic, 13 January 1925, 205; O'Brien, Harry R., “Why the Northwest Went for Coolidge,” CG, 27 12 1924, 16Google Scholar; “Victories by Klan Feature Election,” NYT, 6 November 1924, 1.

72. Noyes, C. Reinold, “The Restoration of the Republican Party,” North American Review, 03 1925, 419Google Scholar; “Differ on Farm Bill,” NYT, 2; Hearings, 1926, 1010–11.

73. Noyes, “Restoration,” 417; Blythe, Stuart O., “When Is a Republican Not a Republican?” CG, 13 06 1925, 19Google Scholar.

74. “Mutterings of Rebellion on the Farm,” Literary Digest, 16 January 1926, 6.

75. “Administration to Deal with Surplus,” WF, 1 January 1926, 10; “All-Iowa Meeting Backs Export Plan,” WF, 8 January 1926, 35; Blythe, Stuart O., “The Midwest Has a Bone to Pick,” CG, 09 1926, 12Google Scholar; “Senate Debates Farm Relief Bill,” WF, 25 June 1926, 894; “Brookhart Wins Senate Nomination, Defeating Cummins,” NYT, 8 June 1926, 1; “Iowa Primary Awakens Senate,” WF, 18 June 1926, 872.

76. Blythe, “The Midwest Has a Bone to Pick,” 12.

77. Williams, Charles Frederick, “William M. Jardine and the Development of Republican Farm Policy” (Ph.D. diss., University of Oklahoma, 1970), 175Google Scholar; “Democrats Expect Nebraska Victory,” NYT, 14 October 1926, 4; “Haugen in Danger of Defeat in Iowa,” NYT, 12 October 1926, 3; “Corn Belt Revolt Stirs Republicans,” NYT, 16 August 1926, 4; “Oklahoma,” NYT, 3 November 1926, 4.

78. Blythe, “The Midwest Has a Bone to Pick,” 128; Harger, Charles Moreau, “The Political Clouds Out West,” Independent, 1 09 1923, 82Google Scholar. The farm groups also helped dissuade challengers by expressing public appreciation for the efforts of their friends. See The Observer, “Taking the Temperature of Public Opinion,” Bureau Farmer, February 1927, 7; [Chester H. Gray], “Our Washington Letter,” Bureau Farmer, December 1927, 11; The Observer, “The ‘Greatest’ Annual Meeting,” Bureau Farmer, January 1928, 4; Wallace, John P., “What Is Going On in Washington,” WF, 22 01 1926, 112Google Scholar; Wallace, John P., “What Is Happening at the Nation's Capital,” WF, 1 03 1929, 356Google Scholar.

79. Hearings, 1926, 1276–77.

80. “Fake Farm Relief,” WF, 23 April 1926, 628; Hearings, 1926, 1273; “J. N. Tincher, Debated Barkley in 1924,” NYT, 7 November 1951, 29; “Threaten to Bar Farm Relief at All Costs,” NYT, 9 May 1926, 15; “Wants Longworth in Chair,” NYT, 20 December 1924, 17.

81. Hearings, 1926, 1277–78; “Senate Debates Farm Relief Plan,” WF, 4 June 1926, 820.

82. “Better Times Ahead for Farmers,” PF, 5 July 1924, 778.

83. Murphy, Donald R., “The Corn Belt's Next Move,” New Republic, 28 07 1926, 275Google Scholar.

84. Fisher, Farmers' Union, 16; Gee, Wilson and Terry, Edward Allison, The Cotton Cooperatives in the Southeast (New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1933), 38Google Scholar; Wiest, Agricultural Organization, p. 398; “Membership Paid to the American Farm Bureau Federation,” 250–51.

85. Gee and Terry, Cotton Cooperatives, chap. 2; Larsen, Grace H. and Erdman, Henry E., “Aaron Sapiro,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 50 (02 1962): 242–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnson, William, “Cotton Cooperatives at the Crossroads,” CG, 6 12 1924, 16Google Scholar. Sapiro also helped organize tobacco cooperatives. Within a year of its founding the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association had enlisted 75 percent of the burley growers. See Barnes, John K., “An Even Break for the Farmer,” World's Work, 10 1922, 612–22Google Scholar; Poe, Clarence, “Talking about Cooperative Marketing,” PF, 7 07 1923, 683Google Scholar.

86. “Federation of Co-operatives Meets,” WF, 16 January 1925, 72; Larsen and Erdman, “Aaron Sapiro.”.

87. Hearings, 1926, 499; May, Irvin, Marvin Jones (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1980), 70Google Scholar.

88. Benedict, Farm Policies, 223–24; Christensen, “Agricultural Pressure,” 203–10; “Cotton Men Join with Corn Belt,” WF, 16 April 1926, 592; “Rumpus over Farm Plan,” NYT, 23 April 1926, 4.

89. Hearings, 1926, 1080, 1074–78; “Haugen Bill Strong,” WF, 11 February 1927, 210; Wallace, H. A., “How the Farm Bill Went Through,” WF, 25 02 1927, 301Google Scholar.

90. Wallace, “How the Farm Bill Went Through,” 301; “A Farmers' Organization in Every Neighborhood,” PF, 24 September 1927, 976; Hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture, “Agricultural Relief,” 70th Congress, 1st sess., Serial E, 1928 (hereafter Hearings, 1928), 23–28, 32–34, 96–98, 118–19, 190, 201–02, 222–23; “Senate Passes McNary-Haugen Bill,” WF, 18 February 1927, 245; “More Support for Haugen Bill,” WF, 10 February 1928, 212.

91. McMath, Robert C., Populist Vanguard (New York: Norton, 1975), 44–46Google Scholar, 124–26; Fisher, Farmers' Union, 55–56; Gee and Terry, Cotton Cooperatives, 52.

92. Gee and Terry, Cotton Cooperatives, 154; Steen, Herman and Stahl, Bill, “The Dark Tobacco ‘Co-ops,’” PF, 13 03 1926, 346–47Google Scholar; “How Can We Save Co-operative Marketing of Tobacco?” PF, 6 February 1926, 152.

93. Christensen, “Agricultural Pressure,” 217; Kilgore, B. W., “Farm Relief Legislatio,” PF, 15 05 1926, 596Google Scholar.

94. Simmons, F. M., “Cotton and the McNary-Haugen Bill,” CG, 08 1927, 12Google Scholar; “We Must Change Not for a Year But for a Lifetime,” PF, 1–14 October 1931, 618; “News Farmers Want to Know,” PF, 7 August 1926, 834.

95. Fenno, Richard F. Jr, Homestyle (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1978), chap. 5Google Scholar.

96. Hearings, 1928, 43, 61.

97. Credit for its invention is given to BAE economist William J. Spillman, but it was most closely associated with John Black, the Harvard economist who endorsed it as the most promising farm relief scheme, and M. L. Wilson, the former BAE economist and professor at Montana State College who promoted it (Murphy, Donald R., “Can We Control Production?” WF, 16 04 1932, 219Google Scholar; ” ‘Domestic Allotment’ Farm Relief,” PF, January 1933, 3; Cook, Louis H., “Domestic Allotment,” CG, 02 1933, 10–11)Google Scholar.

98. In 1931 and 1932, a number of southern states, led by Huey Long's Louisiana, enacted legislation mandating production cutbacks. None of the laws ever went into effect, since they stipulated that other states must first follow suit, but in 1931 acreage control received the endorsement of the editors of Progressive Farmer, three of whom had lent a hand in organizing the cotton cooperatives. “Today, after the failure of all other plans,” they wrote, “we believe that three out of four cotton farmers would vote for the regulation of cotton acreage by law” (“The Cotton Surplus Problem,” PF, 15–30 September 1931, 586; Rowley, William D., M. L. Wilson and the Campaign for the Domestic Allotment [Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1970] 188Google Scholar; “We Must Change Not for a Year,” PF, 618; Williams, T. Harry, Huey Long [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969], 530–33Google Scholar).

99. Saloutos, Theodore, “Edward A. O'Neal,” Current History 28 (06 1955): 356–63Google Scholar; Kile, Farm Bureau, 121; Gee and Terry, Cotton Cooperatives, 57–62.

100. Gray, Chester H., “Jobs for the Special Session,” Bureau Farmer, 04 1933, 3Google Scholar; Rowley, M. L. Wilson, 107–10, 187–88; Fite, Gilbert C., “John A. Simpson,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 35 (03 1949): 563–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lord, Wallaces, 330; “News of the Farm Bureau,” Bureau Farmer, February 1932, 8; “Farmers Not So Particular Now, Endorse 3 Brands of Relief,” Business Week, 11 May 1932, 19; O'Neal, Edward A., “Prevent Revolution,” Bureau Farmer, 03 1933, 3Google Scholar; Saloutos, “Edward A. O'Neal”; Kirkendall, Richard S., Social Scientists and Farm Politics in the Age of Roosevelt (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1982), chap. 2Google Scholar; Saloutos, Theodore, The American Farmer and the New Deal (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1982), chap. 3Google Scholar.

101. “Haugen to Sponsor Farm Bill in House,” NYT, 20 December 1926, 2; “Relief for Farmers Demanded in House,” NYT, 16 December 1926, 2; May, Marvin Jones, 95–103. Jones refused to sponsor the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act, however, and Fulmer received credit as its legislative author. Jones still made his support for the bill clear. See Perkins, Van L., Crisis in Agriculture (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969), 52–54Google Scholar.

102. May, Marvin Jones, 100–01; Hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture, “Agricultural Adjustment Program,” 72d Congress, 2nd sess., Serial M, 1932 (hereafter Hearings, 1932), 265.

103. Hearings, 1932, 17, 16; May, Marvin Jones, 102.

104. Hearings, 1932, 16; May, Marvin Jones, 90.

105. Hearings, 1932, 56, 19–20, 90–91, 101, 148–52, 204.

106. Zeigler, L. Harmon, The Politics of Small Business (Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1961), 84, 85, 79Google Scholar.

107. Price, David E., “Policy Making in Congressional Committees: The Impact of ‘Environmental’ Factors,” American Political Science Review 72 (06 1978): 564CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Downs, Anthony, “Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue-Attention Cycle,” Public Interest 28 (Summer 1972): 38–50Google Scholar; Cook, Mary Etta and Davidson, Roger H., “Deferral Politics: Congressional Decision Making on Environmental Issues in the 1980s,” in Ingram, Helen M. and Godwin, R. Kenneth, eds., Public Policy and the Natural Environment (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1985), 47–76Google Scholar; Jones, Charles O., Clean Air (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1975), 56Google Scholar; Grant, Daniel R., “Carrots, Sticks, and Consensus,” in Roos, Leslie R., ed., The Politics of Ecosuicide (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971), 101Google Scholar; Davies, J. Clarence III and Davies, Barbara S., The Politics of Pollution, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1975)Google ScholarPubMed; Ripley and Franklin, Congress, 125–31.

108. Fenno, Richard F. Jr, Congressmen in Committees (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1973), 31–32Google Scholar.

109. Schattschneider, Semi-sovereign People, chap. 3.