Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1922-04-22
WRITER SAYS
SENATOR NEW
GOES TOO FAR
Questions Proof Of Benefits
Conferred on Farmers
by Congress.

To the Editor: have just read the
speech of Senator New before the Kiwan
is Club as reported in your issue of the
49, The spirit of the speech is most
commendable.
I know nothing about politics, but do
know the farm and the farmers problems
from fifty years of experience Evident
ly he has had no experience in this line
and, no doubt, was addressing an au-
dience with but little. hardly think he
would have attributed the advance in
prices of various farm products to the
Emergency Tariff. the War Finance
Corporation, and other recent legislation
referred to had be been experienced or
even thought the matter out to It's logi-
cal conclusion. There Is a mistake some
where In the calculations.
Take the Curtis bill referred to which
added 100000 to the capital of the
Farm Loan banks. How could that effect
the price of products, as these banks deal
in real estate loans to farmers, and
would not even indirectly affect the grain
market To assume 1t would is to prove
too much.
What had the 800, 1000, 900 Of the War
Finance Corporation to do with the ad-
vance In prices OF products. There are
three positions in the premises to chose
from: Either money was loaned by 1t
to hold back products; or loaned money
to finance exporters; or financed foreign
investments. If It was the first, then we
have Government intervention to impede
or restrict the flow Of commerce. At best
1t Is a speculative procedure. If he
rh hA hav
the Government financing exporters as
business which is hardly within the
function of Government. If he chooses
the third, then we have the Government
financing private and foreign invest
ments-a very questionable procedure, In
time of peace. 1t also proves too much
TO be taken seriously.
What had the Capper Kenyon bill to do
in the situation. II increased the rate on
farm loan bonds from FIVE to FIVE and
one half percentage. The object was to
make available more funds for real estate
loans TO farmers. This also proves too
much If we attribute the rise In price OF
farm products to that piece Of legislation
II did not have such purpose in view.
This leaves the emergency tariff TO
consider. 1t went into effect on May
q last If be thinks that law Is re-
Of the farm products, he is confronted
with the fact that wheat reached Its
lowest price in several years after the
law became effective. and IS as low or
lower now than on May 27, even though
there is a suspicion the market is par
TALLY cornerd at the present time. II
we say it had anything to do with the
advance We would be unable to account
for the phenomena that corn and hogs
went up and wheat went down.
We exported both more wheat and
corn the past year than any year in our
history. 1t was not, then. a question
OF a market. but the price therein that
governed the whole situation. The in
ferences TO be drawn from his statement
as to effect of the legislation mentioned
by him will not bear inspection. The
theory that protection By tariff in any
line where an exportable surplus is now
and has been for years past produced.
has no rational grounds on which to
base the claim. 1t may pass as politics.
lut for nothing else. I admired the
spirit revealed, but / can not accept the
conclusions he would have US draw, that
the legislation was to be credited with
rise in prices OF farm products, for 1t
does not account for the facts In the case.
G. W. INFIELD.