The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1916-12-05
A FOOD EMBARGO?
Host of Arguments Against It-Against
Rights of the Farmer.

1t is q sardonically selfish impulse
that lifts its head with the coming in
of congress to bid us put an embargo
on foodstuffs. The suggestion is an al
front to humane sentiment as well as a
flouting of economic sense.
AS 1t is, we have returned niggardly
charity to Europe in return for huge
profits. Our per capita balance of trade,
that used to be So year Just before
the war, is now running $50 year; but
so far our per capita donations to war
relief funds are about 80 cents. Sena-
tor Borah appropriately terms even dis
cussiOn of food embargo "humilia-
tion,' and declares that our refusal as
a people to feed and clothe the hungry
would be "final proof that the last
ounce of conscience had been eaten
away
AS a matter of fact, it is largely
| constituencies Immortality that makes
| the embargo suggestion, prompted by
hatred of the consignees of the food
cargoes 1t is but a semi transparent
mask to declare that here is means
of retaliation for such things as black
| lists. We have before told Germany
we shall not let one international issue
lentangle another; in discussion with
Austria we have stood for freedom of
| shipment. And here, moreover, our
true national interest. under the cir
cumstances. is to keep away from the
| domestic pitfalls embargoes would dig.
The only national concern that could
actuate us wonld be threat of domestic
| privation, which is not present or in
sight. Ii it were, the intelligent thing
-, Il !, 20 !
| facts, partial or elastic curtailment of
| exports. The only real burden-one
| wrought far more by weather than by
warts that of price; and the main de-
| feet that of waste and poor diStrihu-
ton. What can be remedially done in
| these latter directions is now a com
monplace in Europe; and we do not
need a 1.-THE Of their precautions
An embargo would not be merely
needless; it might be disastrous
Against it rise up host of practical
arguments. Any price increment is
largely mitigated by active employment
and by higher wages.
Then, there are the farmer s rights
as citizen. Why invade and largely
destroy his freedom and possession as
a property owner and disposer? Why
if his crops are less than average
and if government is to curtail his net
income artiticialiv, should it not by i'm
portation and by gift make up to hin
the harvest loss in cereal volume?
Why not make up to him any none
tary loss from prices under a certain
mean level to be -fxed'by a government
which shall, ifxeonsistant, embark on
universal campaign OF commodity price
fixing Why not compensate him a
last by tardv congressional appropria
tion for those lean, dark days of thu
middle nincties when the farm prize
per bushel of wheat was IS cents and O.
corn q cents.
Why not also put embargoes on al
the things the farmer buys as well a
those he sells2 The list Just now woul,
be long one. 1t would begin with tn
steel mills, that he might buy reapers
plows, wire fence, etc, at "normal :
prices; it might end in the AUTOMOBILE
factories. And there is also the goin,
price of farm labor to consider.
And, apart from the farmer, Their
are the farms. High prices stimulat
output; but embargoes would discour
age and cripple needed expansion, a
well as Improvement of unit output an,
of methods all along the line.
The National Grange has already ey
pressed farmer sentiment The Presi
dent is fatty opposed to the food embar
90 deluSiOn. He has written of wha
disaster the embargo meant a eentur,
ago and New England. which then suf
fered most from it, will agree with him
Boston News Bureau.