The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, May 5, 1919, Page 8

LR OO R b J ° ° 3 Vrooman’s Losing Fight for the People Houston and Brand Blocked Assistant Secretary of Agriculture’s Efforts to Extend Help to Farmers and Consumers Washington Bureau, Nonpartisan Leader. HERE are two answers to the claim made by Secretary of Agriculture Houston that he is ruling the department in be- half of the actual producers and consumers of food. The first answer is the Chi- cago packers, and the second is Carl Vrooman. The federal trade commission has revealed how the Big Five packers have built up their conspiracy to control the price of livestock to the farmer and of foods of all kinds to the consumer. David F. Houston has been relied upon by the lobbyists for the Swifts, Armours, Morrises and the other big packers to remain neutral, or to intervene in their behalf when their activities have been threatened. Carl Vrooman has been forced to resign as as- sistant secretary of agriculture because of Hous- ton’s hostile attitude toward his pro-farmer and pro-consumer views. Vrooman was assistant sec- retary for about four years. He was a liberal Wil- son Democrat when he entered the department, and he tried for four long years to make the department serve the gen- eral good. Finally, after going abroad and seeing how far ad- vanced are some of the allied governments in handling the problem of direct marketing, and knowing what he did know of the hopeless situation in his own department, Vrooman re- “signed. He has gone back to his farm in Illinois. “BIG FOUR” CLOSED UP TOWARD VROOMAN “When Vrooman became as- sistant secretary, Estabrook was in charge of crop esti- . mates, Alsberg at the head of the chemistry bureau, Taylor in control of plant industry, and Brand at the head of the bureau of markets. These four men, led by Brand; closed in upon Secretary Houstoh and discovered that they had a common viewpoint. Likewise they closed up toward Vroo- man. They had no sympathy with his “radical” views. Vrooman, when he went in, saw endless opportunity to promote the co-operative move- ment, and to get out bulletins that would bring a new hope and a new self-confidence into the ‘heart of the farmer on the half-cleared, mortgaged, under-equipped place. But it was discovered that Assistant Secre- tary Vrooman was not in charge of the scien- tific work. He was being quietly shouldered out of the way by Secretary Houston and Brand. Finally Vrooman was placed in charge of the issuance of bulletins. But even that share of authority was cut off. Vrooman’s known views were overridden, and bulletins were issued which tended to discourage the formation of co-operative grain elevator associations. Houston got rid of Vrooman by having congress create two additional assistant secretaryships, in the first of which he placed a Joe Bailey politician, Clarence Ousley, once city editor of a Texas paper at a time when its policy was changed to favor the big packers after it got a generous loan from Ar- -mour & Co. It is possible that Vrooman might have had a chance to influence some small item of policy, if he had not committed a political crime just before President Wilson nominated him. Roger Sullivan ' was running for senator from Illinois on the Demo- cratic ticket.. Raymond Robins was the Progressive nominee. Sherman was the Republican candidate. Vrooman went out for Robins against Sullivan. During the war there appeared to be a chance that the stockyards would be taken over and oper- ated by the government. A special board was cre- ated by President Wilson, including the federal feeders. trade commission, bureau of markets, labor depart- ment, food administration and tariff commission. After a long struggle, Commissioner Murdock of the federal trade commission was outvoted, and the livestock and meat industry was left in control of the packers and the bureau of markets. In that special board, whose decision cost the people of this country scores of millions of dollars in packers’ profits, Murdock’s most active opponent was Louis D. Hall, meat and livestock specialist in the bureau of markets. DURAND WAS CHOSEN TO FIGHT BORLAND BILL In 1916, when the Borland resolution for an in- vestigation of the packers was pending, there was a series of meetings of the packers’ committee in the Chicago office of Swift & Co. to deal with the Borland resolution and with the convention of the Texas Cattle Raisers’ association, and the packers decided to have Doctor E. Dana Durand, University of Minnesota professor, who compiled the Garfield report whitewashing the packers, to present their argument against the Borland resolution. They also l FEEDERS AT THE SOUTH ST. PAUL MARKET l About half of the cattle which go through the South St. Paul market are stockers and The cattle shown above are typical of the class. fatten the stock they raise, sell them through this market to those who wish to fatten ‘them. This trade is subject to great abuses by the stockyards company and by speculators who control the commission men. But no official hand is raised to stop these abuses. The department of agriculture does not “know” that they exist. Nor do the Minnesota state politicians. decided to ask Director Brand to go to the cattle growers’ convention. A document printed in the senate hearings show- ed that the packers arranged to invite Brand to stop off in Chicago on his way to Texas, and that “It was agreed that Louis F. Swift, G. F. Swift Jr., or Harold H. Swift would show Mr. Brand some attention while he was in Chieago.” Henry-Veeder, lobbyist for the packers, admitted that this attention “might be a dinner.” . W. B. Traynor of Swift & Co. suggested that he thought “It will be all right to request Mr. Brand to have Mr. Hall address the American Meat Pack- ers’ association at the next convention. * * * Mr, McManus is on very familiar terms with Mr. Brand, and could, perhaps, handle the matter as satisfac- torily as any one.” Three days later, Traynor wrote G. F. Swift Jr. that “the committee thinks that it would be well to have Mr. Hall, chief of the marketing division of the bureau of markets, address the American Meat Packers’ association. ; Meantime, the bureau of markets was getting ready to put out its famous camouflage “statistics” on the meat business, suggested by Professor Du- rand as being the best way to avoid a packer in- vestigation. On November 6, 1916, J. M.’ Chaplin of Swift & Co. wrote to Louis F. Swift: “The writer met L. D. Hall of the office of markets, in Philadelphia, and - PAGE EIGHT Farmers who can not afford to went over with him the question of market report- ing, which is to be undertaken by the office of markets. * * ¥ _ “Mr. Hall said he felt the necessity for starting jn a very modest way, that he had been compelled to reduce the number of grades on which he would ask for information at least until such time as they were better acquainted with the matter.” Then followed this statement: “This whole matter seems to rest as follows: That they will spend three or four weeks get- ting posted on the problem and that after that time they will formulate some definite plan and line of information which THEY WILL COM- MUNICATE TO US FOR OUR APPROVAL.” On November 15, 1917, an unsigned letter to Thomas E. Wilson, president of Wilson & Co., stated that “Mr. Hall of the bureau of markets called me today and stated that the question of making out daily loading reports on fresh meat had been postponed for the time being. THIS DE- CISION WAS INFLUENCED LARGELY BY YOUR TALK WITH MR. HALL AT THE LUNCH TABLE YESTERDAY.” In his annual report as chief of the bureau of markets for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1918, Charles J. Brand makes this statement: - “During the fiscal year 191 work in marketing and rural organization was conducted in co-operation with 27 of the 48 states. Work in each state was under the immediate direction of a field agent in marketing, stationed in the state, his *func- tion being to assist in co-ordi- nating its marketing and rural organization activities. * * # In the states in which agents were stationed, careful study was made of local marketing problems, existing marketing machinery, transportation fa- cilities and marketing outlets. Assistance was given in .co- operative organization work, and in the marketing of vari- ous commodities.” HAD AGENT IN N. D,, DIRECTOR EXPLAINS Among the 27 states named in the list was North Dakota. “What are you doing in pro- moting co-operative buying and selling among the farmers in North Dakota ?” C. W. Thomp- son, in charge of this work, was asked. “We have a state agent there,” he said. Then he tele- phoned to a subordinate and discovered that the guess was wrong. “We did have an agent there,” he corrected him- self. “It was Doctor Boyle, formerly of the North Dakota Agricultural college. He left North Dakota about a year ago, and we have found it difficult to get a good man for the place.” This Doctor Boyle proves to be the Doctor James E. Boyle who recently, at Rochester, N. Y., said that under the federal grain grades and federal in- spection “the grain trade claims, and very rightly 8o, that the gross evils have been abolished.” 'This same Boyle now is fighting the Nonpartisan league, under cover of ‘a professorship at Cornell. Mr_. Thompson pointed to a series of bulletins sho.wmg how .co-operative associations may best do their bookkeeping, and how various co-operative stores are managed. 4 “But are you trying to get farmers to co-operate in order to do away with the middlemen?” _“l_\Io. We can only help them when they are willing. We send men to lecture on co-operation, and wl_xen a co-operative association is formed, our men give _them any help they desire, but the co- operative idea can not be forced upon them.” It is a 100-to-1 shot that an agent of the bureau of markets who tried to promote co-operatives at the expense of the big middleman would find the bureau of markets a bad neighborhood. One young enthusiast in the dairy division, a few § B