REMARKS OF SENATOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY NORTHWEST FARM CONVENTION BANQUET Washington, D. C. March 11, 1976

It is a pleasure to be with the Northwest Iowa Farm group tonight. I enjoy working with your two distinguished Senators, and John Culver, both of whom have provided real leadership in the Senate. And Berkeley Bedell is to be commended for bringing all of us together this evening. Berkeley is a real asset for the State of Iowa. Just last week I addressed the first Birthright dinner of the American School Food Service Association. The theme of that meeting was "Enough to Eat is Every Man's Birthright," taken from the 25th Chapter of Genesis. I said then that the first essential in working to see that people have an adequate diet is to assure that our food producers are able to stay in business. It is pointless to talk about fair and effective food distribution if we can't guarantee that an adequate food supply is on hand in the first place. Our farmers need some assurance of a fair price -- at least a chance to make a profit -- if these humanitarian goals are to be achieved. This nation always has been responsive to those in need. But in the process we often have taken the producer for granted. In the years ahead we will face not only the urgent problem of feeding the needy, but also the growing overall struggle between an ever increasing population and limited world food supplies. The earth's population today of about four billion people will nearly double by the end of the century. To realize the implications of this, we should note that the earth's population crossed the one billion mark early in the nineteenth century and was only 1.6 billion in 1900. Since we are the world's chief supplier of grains and soybeans, the policies we follow will be the great planetary suspense story of the century. We are not constrained by a lack of physical capacity to produce enough food. We have the technology, the resources and the ability. What we lack is the will to banish hunger -- and the plan to get it done . There is no food policy. And we have only the beginnings of a world food policy. Our farmers were asked this year to plant fence to fence, and they were promised access to world markets. But before the harvest was completed, the government again placed controls that it calls "voluntary restraints" on export sales. The consumer also has suffered since 1972 from price changes and fluctuations in supply. You may recall that it was in 1972 that the Administration allowed our food reserve to dwindle from a supply of several months to less than a month. -2- It is being said today that food policy is too important to be left to the Department of Agriculture. I disagree. The basic responsibility and initiative should rest in the Department of Agriculture rather than another Department or the White House where they don't know the difference between a corn-cob and a combine.

Food policy is too important to be left to chance. But it also is too important to be left to a Secretary of Agriculture who refuses to face a changed world but still wants to stay in office. The Administration recently established an agricultural policy committee with the Secretary of Agriculture in charge. We will have to wait and see if this is election year posturing, or if the Administration has learned anything from its mishandling of grain exports and palm oil imports.

Part of the reasoning for the Nixon-Butz decision in 1972 to get rid of existing food reserves was that they were too costly too keep.

It is true that the cost of carrying food stocks today is small, and that government costs of farm programs are down sharply.

I doubt, however, that anyone noticed a savings on his tax bill.

But you have noticed ''~hat has happened to your food bill. It went up by-aDOut 35 percent from 1972 to 1974. The food bill of American citizens has increased by more than $57 billion in the last three years. This is the result of turning you over to the tender mercies of the Butz boom and bust market.

That $57 billion is far more than the $40 billion it cost the taxpayer in farm stabilization and conservation programs in the last 40 years.

A recent study by Georgetown University shows that in only 11 of the last 50 years did our farmers break even or make a profit. This should end the notion that our farmers have been subsidized by urban America. To the contrary, our farmers have been subsidizing the American consumer for years. I believe that America has a unique role to play in this hungry world. But to do so we need a balanced food policy. The time has come to turn away from the failures of the past several years.

How many more times will our producers and consumers have to be burned by volatile markets?

How much longer will we expose our overseas customers to the gnawing uncertainly about us as a supplier? And how long will we turn our backs on the real and present hunger in the world?

It no longer is good enough for the poor to eat only in the good years.

It no longer is good enough for farmers to prosper only once in a while.

It no longer is good enough to ask our farm families to plant this year's crop when wildly gyrating prices give them no clue as to whether they will recover their investment, let alone make a profit. -3-

It no longer is good enough for our export customers to wonder whether they will be left holding an empty bag if supplies tighten up here. It no longer is good enough to have to choose between supplying our own people and those beyond our borders. And it no longer is good enough to say that we can't feed the whole world -- to justify doing less than we are able to do. I've recited some of the problems with our present policies. Now let me explain what I believe we need in a food policy. First, it must be based on a commitment to abundance. Next, it must be comprehensive and coordinated -- an integrated set of policies relating food production, processing, marketing, distribution, exports, trade, consumption and nutrition.

Third, it must seek several specific objectives, including: A fair return to farmers to sustain high-level production; Adequate food supplies at reasonably stable prices for consumers and users of farm products· Being a reliable supplier on the world export market; Supporting feeding programs for the needy here and abroad; Improved nutrition, here and abroad; and Assuring adequate inputs, transportation and credit for agricultural requirements. A national food policy geared to these objectives is more than just desirable. It is essential. And I am convinced that the American people would support such a policy. I have been chairing some food policy hearings being conducted by the Technology Assessment Board of the Office of Technology Assessment to identify the components of a comprehensive national food policy. In the Joint Economic Commiteee of the Congress, which I chair, we have given attention to the role which agriculture must play in a full-employment, full-production economy. And in the Foreign Agricultural Policy Subcommitee, which I also chair, we have been examining ways of achieving better coordination of our food policies. If a lesson can be drawn from the experiences of the past three years, it is that we have a new ball game. New mechanisms for decision-making are needed to respond to the structural changes in agriculture. In developing a food policy we must balance the needs of consumers and farmers. We do not have to put our livestock, poultry and dairy producers through an extreme of boom and bust, fueled by volatile feed prices. In fact, we need not an agricultural policy, a consumer policy or a trade policy, but a policy which relates and balances all of these elements. And we also need to balance short and long term interests. In recent years, our decision-makers sometimes have taken short-term approaches with little regard for the longer term impact. -4-

We must be conscious, too, that agriculture does not function in a world of its own. Efficient food production is highly dependent upon credit resources, energy, transportation, distribution, tax policies and basic research. What I have said about the need for a balanced, interrelated U.S. policy on food also applies to a world which has entered a new era of food insecurity. While U.S. grain and soybean stocks have increased sharply in the past year, world production is only slightly above 1974 and three percent less than 1973. The prospect for the world is continuing tight supplies, with possibly a food deficit of 85 million tons in the developing countries by 1985. There is an new internationalism abroad in the world -- not based upon the old imperatives of diplomacy and security -- but based upon a sense of interdependence in the areas of commodities, technology, production and trade. We have been slow in recognizing this new direction. We need to help establish a sound world food reserve. It is not enough just to be for it. We must help implement it and make it work.

As for a national reserve, it really is not that complicated a problem if we will trust farmers to keep the bulk of the stocks on the farm through an extended loan program. We also need to be hard-boiled about insisting that the reserve be used for strategic and emergency purposes, not manipulated to drive the farmer out of business or to hold down prices.

We're all frustrated about the boom and the bust. But we have to get rid of both at the. same time. In recent weeks, there have been numerous newspaper headlines about using our food as a weapon of foreign policy. We need to use our food to help build world peace. The challenge before us is awesome. The nation which conceived the Marshall Plan, Food for Peace, the Peace Corps, and so many other noble initiatives, is not short on courage or imagination. We need not fail our own people or the hungry world at this crucial moment. There is a destiny and a role for America. It's your choice now and mine.

# # # # # #

-1-

IT IS A PLEASURE TO BE WITH THE NORTHWEST IowA FARM

GROUP TONIGHT.

I ENJOY WORKING WITH YOUR TWO DISTINGUISHED SENATORS)

DICK CLARK AND JOHN CULVER) BOTH OF WHOM HAVE PROVIDED

REAL LEADERSHIP IN THE SENATE. AND BERKELEY BEDELL IS TO BE COMMENDED- FOR BRINGING ALL OF US TOGETHER THIS EVENING[. BERKELEY IS A REAL TRIBUTE TO T-H-E -S-TA_T_E_O_F-IO-\Il_A_. --~---~-...... "ttw< I ~ ~

. - ~....,...... -~~~~ • e ...._.~•• ...... ,""""""""""""'""""""~ ,..... ,---=-- .. ...,...__ ---.jUST------LAST WEEK-- I ADDRESSED THE FIRST BIRTHRIGHT DINNER

OF THAT MEETING WAS "ENOUGH TO EAT IS EVERY MAN's BIRTHRIGHT)"

TAKEN FROM THE 25TH CHAPTER OF GENESIS. -2-

L I SAID THEN THAT TH E FIRST EssENTIAL ~sf~ Wl~ PEOPLE ~ AN ADE UATE DIET IS TO ASSUR E THAT OUR FOOD PROD UCE RS

ARE ABLE TO STAY I BUS I NESS.L_;T IS POINTLESS TO TALK ABOUT

FAIR AND EFFECTIVE FOOD DISTRIBUTION IF WE CAN'T GUARA NTEE THAT

AN ADEQUATE FOOD SUPPLY IS ON HAND IN THE FIRST PLAC E. ------~~------~n-•· -m--n-•---~~·-­ ~OUR FARMERS NEED SOM E ASS URA NCE OF A FAI R PRICE -- AT LEAST A

CHAN CE TO MAKE A PROFIT -- IF THES E HUMA NITARIAN GOALS ARE TO

BE ACHIEVED.

~S NATIO N ALWAYS HAS BEEN RESPONSIVE TO THOSE IN NEED •

BUT IN THE PROCES1 WE OFTE N HAVE TA KEN THE~UC E R FOR GRA N TE~,

~I N THE YEARS AHEAD WE WILL FAC E NOT ONLY THE URGE NT P RO~ LE M

OF FEEDI NG THE NEEDYJ BUT ALSO THE GRO l NG OVERALL STRUGGLE BETWEEN

AN EVER INCREASI NG POPULATION AND LI MITED WOR LD FOOD SUPPLIES. -3-

L THE EARTH's POPULATION TODAY OF ABOUT FOUR BILLION PEOPLE

WILL NEARLY DOUBLE BY THE END OF THE CENTURY~ REALIZE

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THI~ WE SHOULD NOTE THAT THE EARTH'S

POPULATION CROSSED THE ONE BILLION MARK EARLY IN THE

NINETEENTH CENTURY AND WAS ONLY 1.6 BILLION IN 1900 1

~SINCE WE ARE THE W~'s CHIEF SUPPLIER OF GRAINS AND

SOYBEANS~ THE POLICIES WE FOLLOW WILL BE THE GREAT PLANETARY

SUSPENSE STORY OF THE CENTURY,

~E ARE NOT CONSTRAI NED BY A

TO PRODUCE ENOUGH FOO~ HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY, THE RESOURCES

AND THE ABILITY,

~HAT WE LACK IS THE WILL TO BANISH HUNGER -- AND THE PLAN

TO GET IT DONE, -4- THERE- IS NO NITED STATES FOOD POLICY, AND WE HAVE ONLY THE BEGINNINGS OF A WOR LD FOOD POLICY,

LOUR FARMERS WERE ASKED THIS YEAR TO PLA NT FENCE TO FENCE,

AND THEY WERE PROMISED ACCESS TO WORLD MARKETS~ BUT BEFORE

THE HARVEST WAS COMPLETED) THE GOVERNMENT AGAI N PLACED CONTROLS

THAT IT CALLS "VOLUNTARY RESTRAINTS" ON EXPORT SALES, ~4-p

~THE CO NSUMER ALSO HAS SUFFERED SINCE 1972 FROM PRICE

C~ES AND FLUCTUATIONS IN SUPPLY~OU MAY RECALL THAT IT

WAS IN 1972 THAT THE ADM INISTRATIO ALLOWED OUR FOOD RESERVE TO DWINDLE A MONTH -c ~ IT IS BEING SAID TODAY THAT FOOD POLICY IS TOO IMPORTA NT

TO BE LEFT TO THE DE PARTME NT OF AGR ICULTUREl I DISAGREE. -5-

THE BASIC RESPO NSIBILITY AND INITIATIVE SHOULD REST IN THE

EPARTMENTOF AGRICULTURE RATH ER THAN ANOTHER DEPARTME NT OR

THE WHITE HOUSE WHER E THEY DON'T KNOWTHE DIFFERENC E BET EEN

A COR N-CO AND A COMBI NE.

~OOD POLICY IS TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO C H A N C E ~T IT

ALS O IS TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO A SECR ETARY OF AGRICULTURE

WHO REFUSES TO FAC E A CHANGED WORLD BUT STILL WANTS TO STAY IN OFFICE • .,.

THE ADMI NISTRATIO N RECE NTLY ESTABLIS HED AN AGRICULTURAL

POLICY COMMITTEE WITH TH E SECR ETARY OF AGRICULTUR E IN CHARG E.

L.!..E WILL HAVE_ TO.,W AIT AND SEE IF THIS IS ELECT! ON YEAR POSTU RI N:,

OR IF THE ADMI NISTRATI ON HAS LEAR1ED ANYTHI NG FRO M ITS MIS HAN DLI NG ------~-----j··~----- OF GRAI N EXPORTS ANDPAL M OIL IMPORTS. ~--:::::==== :======·=··=-======~---·-- ::= -- -6-

~PART OF THE REASONI NG FOR THE IX N-BUTZ DECISION IN 1972

TO GET RID OF EXISTING FOOD RESERVES WAS THAT THEY WERE TOO

COSTLY TOO KEEP.

~ IT IS TRUE THAT THE COST OF CARRYI NG FOOD STOCKS TODAY IS SMALL,-- AD THAT GOVER NMENT COSTS OF FARM PROGRAMS ARE DOWN SHARPLY, J DOUBT, HOWEVER, THAT ANYO NE NOTICED A SAVI NG. ON HIS TAX- Bl LL. BUT YOU ~ NOTICED WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOUR FOOD BILL,

IT WENT UP BY ABOUT 35 PERCENT FROM 1972 TO 1974,

THE FOOD BILL OF AMERICA N CITIZE NS HAS INCREASED BY MORE

THAN $57 BILLION IN TH E LAST TH REE YEARS, THIS IS THE RESULT

OF TURNI NG YOU OVER TO TH E TEND ER MERCIES OF THE BUTZ BOOM

AND BUST MARKET. -7-

IT COST

PROGRAMS I N

______.. ..,.._,_._.,....., __.,...... ,,n~~,;r ======-====-=··~~··e==-·-·~ =-==· = --­

A RECENT STUDY BY GEORGETOWN UN IVERSITY SHOWS THAT I N ONLY

11 OF THE LAST 50 YEARS DID OUR FARMERS BREAK EVEN OR MAKE A

PROFIT. THIS SHOULD END THE NOTION THAT OUR FARMERS HAVE BEEN

SUBSIDIZED BY.UR~~ AMERI~~O THE CONTRARY, OUR FARMERS HAVE ,.

BEEN SUBSIDIZING THE AMERICAN CONSUMER FOR YEARS,

~I BELIEVE THAT AMERICA HAS A UNIQUE ROLE TO PLAY IN THIS

HUNGRY WORLD, BUT TO DO SO WE NEED A BALANCED FOOD POLICY,

k! Hf I'!![ IJ,O,!i §AM£ TO f'ift'i 6116¥ Fllit1 TilE FA JloiiR~S o~ lll E, - -8-

Hot MANYMORE TI MES WILL OUR PROD UC ERS AND CO NSUM ERS HAVE

TO BE BURNED BY VOLATILE MARKETS?

How MUCH LO NGER WILL WE EXPOSE OUR OVERS EAS CUSTOME RS TO

THE GNAW ING UNCERTAI NLY ABOUT US AS A SUPPLIER?

AND HOW LONG WILL WE TURN OUR BACKS ON THE REAL AND PRESENT

HUNGER IN THE WORLD?

lT NO LO NGER IS GOOD E 10UGH FOR THE POO R TO EAT ONLY I N

THE GOOD YEARS,

IT NO LO NGE R IS GOOD ENO UG H FOR FAR ME RS TO PROSPER ONLY

ONCE IN A WH ILE,

IT NO LO NGERIS GOOD ENOUGH TO ASK OUR FAR M FAMILI ES TO

PLA NT THIS YEAR'S CROP WHEN WILDLY GY RATING PRICES GIVE THEM

NO CLUE AS TO WHE TH ER THEY WILL RECOV ER THEI R I N VESTM EN T~

LET ALO NE MAKE A PROFIT. -9-

IT NO LONGER IS GOOD ENOUG FOR OUR EXPORT CUSTOMERS TO

WONDER WHE THER THEY WILL BE LEFT HOLDING AN EMPTY BAG IF

SUPPLIES TIGHTEN UP HERE.

~IT NO LO NGER IS GOOD ENOUGH TO HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN

SUPPLYING OUR OWN PEOPLE AND THOSE BEYOND OUR BORDERS.

AND IT NO LONGER IS GOOD ENO UGH TO SAY THAT WE CAN'T FEED

THE WHO LE WORLD -- TO JUSTIFY DOING LESS THAN WE ARE ABLE TO DO.

I'VE RECITED PRESENT POLICIES,

NowLET ME EXPLAI N WHAT I BELIEVE WE NEED I N A FOOD POLICY,

~ FIRST, IT MUST BE BASED ON A COMMITME NT TO ABUNDANCE,

~ NE XTr IT MUST BE COMPREHENSIVE ANDCOORDINATED -- AN

INTEGRATED SET OF POLICIES RELATING FOOD PRODUCTIONJ PROCESSI NGJ

MARKETINGJ DISTRIBUTIONJ EXPORTSJ TRADEJ CONSUMPTION AND NUTRITION, -.10-

~~RD, IT MUST SEEK SEVERAL SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES, INCLUDI NG:

~ FAIR RETURN TO FARMERS TO SUSTAI N HIGH-LEVEL PRODUCTION;

~ADE UATE FOOD SUPPLIES AT REASO NABLY STABLE PRICES FOR

CO NSUMERS AND USERS OF FARM PRODUCTS;

~BEING A RELIABLE SUPPLIER ON THE WORLD EXPORT MARKET;

~SUPPORTING FEEDI NG PROGRAMS FOR THE NEEDY HERE AND ABROAD;

~ lMPRO~ED NUT~ITION1 HERE AND ABROAD; AND

~URING ADEQUATE INPU TS) TRA NS PORTATION AND CREDIT FOR - ...... _ - FOOD POLICY GEARED TO THESE OBJECTIVES IS ==::::::::

MORE THAN JUST DESIRABLE~T IS ESSENTIAL. AND I AM

CO NVI NCED THAT THE AMER ICAN PEOPLE WOULD SUPPORT SUCH A POLICY, -11-

~ I HAVE BEEN CHAIRI NG SOME FOOD POLICY HEARINGS BEING

CO ND UCTED BY THE TECH NO LOGY ASSESSMENT BOARD OF THE OFFICE

OF TECHNOLOGY As SESS MENTTO IDE NTIFY THE COMPONE NTS OF A

COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL FOOD POLICY,

IN TH E JOI NT ECONOMIC COMMITEEE OF THE CONGRESS1 WH ICH

I CHAIR 1 WE HAVE GIVEN ATTE NTIO N TO THE ROLE WHICH AGRICULTURE

MUST PLAY IN A FULL-EMPLOYME N T~ FULL-PRODUCTIO N ECONOMY,

~ND I N THE FoREIGN AGRICULTURAL PoLICY SuBcOMMITEE, WHICH

I ALSO CHAIR 1 WE HAVE BEEN EXAMI NING WAYS OF ACHIEVING BETTER

COORDI NATIO N OF OUR FOOD POLICIES,

0 A LESSON CAN BE DRA-~ FRO~~ EX~~ THE PAST THREE

YEARSJ IT IS THAT WE HAVE A NEW BALL GAME, EW MECHANISMS FOR

DECISION-MAKING ARE NEEDED TO RESP ND TO THE STRUCTURAL CHA NGES

IN AGRICULTURE, -12-

~IN DEVELOPING A FOOD POLICY WE MUST BALANCE THE NEEDS OF

CONSUMERS AND FARMERS WE DO NOT HAVE TO PUT OUR LIVESTOCKJ

POULTRY AND DAIRY PRODUCERS THROUGH AN EXTREME OF BOOM AND BUSTJ

FUELED BY VOLATILE FEED PRICES.

~I N FACTf WE NEED NOT AN AGRICULTURAL POLICY, A CONSUMER

POLICY OR A TRADE POLICJJ BUT A POLICY WHICH RELATES AND BALANCES

ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS.

~AND WE ALSO NEED TO BALANCE SHORT AND LONG TERM INTERESTS.

IN RECENT YEARSJ OUR DECISION-MAKERS SOMETI MES HAVE TAKE N SHOR T-TERM

APPROACHES WITH LITTLE REGARD FOR THE LONGER TERM IMPACT,

~ WE MUST BE CONSCIOUS, TOO, THAT AGRICULTURE DOES NOT FU NCTI ON

IN A WOR LD OF ITS OWN . EFFICIENT FOOD PRODUCTION IS HIGHLY DEPENDENT UPON CREDIT RESOURCESJ ENERGYJ TRANSPORTATIONJ- DISTRIBUTIONJ TAX POLICIES AND BASIC RESEARCH, -13-

WHAT I HAVE SAID ABOUT TH E NEED FOR A BALANCED~ INTERRELATED

U. . POLICY ON FOOD ALSO APPLIES TO A WORLD WH ICH HAS ENTERED

A NEW ERA OF FOOD I NSECURITY,

~HILE U,S, GRAI N ANDSOY BEAN STOCKS HAVE I NCREASED SHARPLY

IN THE PAST YEAR~ WORLD PRODUCTIO N IS ONLY SLIGHTLY AB OVE

1974 AND THREE PERCENT LESS THAN19 73 LTHE PROSP ECT FOR THE

WORLD IS CONTI NUI NG TIGHT SUPPLI ES~ WITH POSSI BLY A FOOD

DEFICIT OF 85 MILLIO TO NS I N THE DE VELOPI NG COU NTRI ES BY 1985 ,

h. THERE IS AN NE1"1 I NTERNATIO NALIS M ABROAD IN THE lORLD -- NO T

'=- . -,- 7 :r-x=:-=rr: • ·r-· • tr: ·a··m ., -

BASED UPON THE OLD IMPER ATIVE S OF DIPLOMACY AND SECURITY -- BU T

BAS ED UPO N A SENSE OF INTE RDE PE NDEN CE I N THE AREAS OF COMMODITI ES~

TECH NO LOGY~ PRODUCTIO N ANDTRAD E.

~4 E HAVE BEEN SLOW I RECOG NIZI NG THIS NEWDIRECTION, -14-

4E NEED TO HELP ESTABLISH A SOUND WORLD FOOD RESERVE, IT

IS NOT ENOUGH JUST TO BE FOR IT. E MUST HELP IMPLEMENT IT

AND MAKE IT WORK.

[__ As FOR A NATIONAL RESERVE( IT REALLY IS NOT THAT COMPLICATED

A PROBLEM IF WE WILL TRUST FARMERS TO KEEP THE BULK OF THE

STOCKS ON THE FARM THROUGH AN EXTENDED LOAN PROGRAM,

~E ALSO NEED TO BE HARD-BOILED ABOUT INSISTING--THAT THE

R:SER~E BE USED FOR STRATEGIC AND EMERGENCY PURPOSE)' NOT

MANIPULATED TO DRIVE THE FARMER OUT OF BUSINESS OR TO HOLD ~-=~------·~-~------DOWN PRICES,

~ ~E'RE ALL FRUSTRATED ABOUT THE BOOM AND THE BUS~ Bur WE

HAVE TO GET RID OF BOTH AT THE SAME TIME,

~ RECE NT WEEKSJ THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS NEWSPAPER HEADLI NES

ABOUT USING OUR FOOD AS A WEAPO N OF FOREIGN POLICY.

------~------·-·· - NEED TO USE OUR FOOD TO HELP BUILD WORLD PEACE, F >

CHALLE NGE BEFORE US IS AWESOME,

~THE NA TIO N WHICH CONCEIVED THE MA RSHALL PLAN1 FooD FOR

PEACE1 THE PEACE CORPS1 AND SO MANY OTHER NOBLE INITIATIVES 1

IS NO T SHORT ON COURAGE OR IMAGINATION~ WE NEED NOT FAIL OUR

01N PEOPLE OR THE HUNGRY WORLD AT THIS CRUCIAL MOMENT,

THERE IS A DESTINY AND A ROLE FOR AMER ICA, IT'S YOUR

CHOICE NOW AND MINE,

# # # # # # Historical Society

Copyright in this digital version belongs to the Minnesota Historical Society and its content may not be copied without the copyright holder's express written permis­ sion. Users may print, download, link to, or email content, however, for individual use.

To req uest permission for commercial or ed uca tional use, please contact the Minnesota Hi stori cal Society.

1~ W'W'W. mnhs.org