Evening star., 1923-02-24
Better Credit for Farmers.

No greater mistake could be made
than to assume that the controversy
now on in Congress over rural credit
legislation is of interest only to farm
ers, and that the chief necessity for
the enactment of such legislation is to
satisfy the farmer vote" Every per-
son whose interests are affected by the
agricultural industry, and that means
every one, will be benefited when the
farmer is afforded credit facilities COM
parable to those afforded the manufac-
turer and the merchant. 1t is q para
doX which ought not to exist that the
owners of land, the best and only in
deStruCtible security, are compelled to
pay s and II per cent for productive
loans, while the manufacturer and
merchant, with periShable and less
stable security to offer, are given ac-
rommodation at 3 and per cent. 1t
is condition which the American
people cannot afford to have con-
tinued. for there can be no true rela-
tivity of values or safe prosperity so
long as agricultural production is un-
der this unfair handicap.
The average layman may not be
specially interested in the contention
over the two proposals for rural cred
its now chiefly under consideration,
hut he is concerned that the relief
proposed shall be both practical and
immediate. There is agreement so
general that it is no longer in dispute
that the principal need of the farmer
is for better .'intermediate" credit. by
which is meant loans for periods
somewhere between the short-time
loans which suffice for the manufac-
turer and merchant with their quick
turnovers. and longtime loans under
land mortgage. The farmers turn
over runs from six months in the case
of ordinary crops to three years in
the case of livestock breeding. and he
needs an agency through which he
may borrow for purposes of produc-
tion which does not require that he
promise to repay until his produce is
marketable. Until such an agency is
provided him the country can have no
assurance of an adequate supply of
foodstuifs at prices which will not un-
duly enhance the cost of living.
The two credit measures to which
interest mainly attaches are the Cap
per bill and the Lenroot-Anderson bill,
both of which have been passed by
the Senate and now are being consid-
cred by the House committee on bank
ing and currency. Both measures
have met the approval of farm organi-
cations and the general purposes of
both are. sanctioned by financial ex-
pcrts, though there is criticism Of
some details of each.
The consensus of opinion seems to
be that the Lenroot- bill
promises the more immediate reliei
and gives the greater assurance of
the intermediate" credit which the
farmer chiefly needs. and both the
Secretary OF Agriculture and the Sec
retary of Commerce have within the
last few days written letters urging
that its provisions be enacted into law
at the present session of Congress.
They are not opposed to the Capper
bill, with its more elaborate but less
direct program, but they see very
real and urgent necessity that the
government aided credit scheme of the
Lenroot- Anderson bill be made oper-
ative without delay.
On the other hand: supporters of
the more radical Capper program re-
gard the Lenroot- Anderson plan as a
step in the right direction. So an eff.
fort is being made to draft a compro-
mise bill, gaining the immediate bene-
fits of the one and embodying the
future possibilities of the other. 1t
is an effort. calculated to win the sup
port of those whose chief aim is to
help the farmer as well as those who
think in terms Of national Well-being,
and having the influence of the ad-
ADMINISTRATION back of il failure to en-
act a workable rural credits bill be-
fore adjournment would be something
Congress would find exceedingly diff
cult to explain.