Evening star., 1924-09-28
BY WILL p. KENNEDY.

w YHAT do the farmers want?
Y n What are the farmers likely
NN to get? These are partic-
ularly pertinent questions
just now when rival can
didates for the presidency and other
high office recognize the great farm
ing regions Of the Northwest as the
principal battle-ground of the present
campaign, and are sending their ennis
saries to the farm leaders.
Boiled down, the answer to those
two questions, as the situation now
stands is: % The farm interests
will try again to put through Con-
gress the McNary- Haugen agricul-
tural export bill, or the substance of
it, and (2) the chances are decidedly
slim for this or any similar so-called
farm-relief measure in the next ses-
sion of Congress
Entirely aside from the merits Of
the case. this is the situation as
shown by political sleuths who have
been out among the farm leaders.
For the most part the demand for
agricultural legislation comes from
organized groups like the Farm Bu-
reau and the National Grange. They
hold their annual meetings in Decem-
Der, between the election and the con-
vening of Congress. They never ar
rive at definite legislative program
till that meeting is held. So that to
find out what the farmer wants in ad-
vance of those meetings is difficult.
Courtfng the Farm Vote.
The candidates, meaning particu-
larly Mr.. Coolidge and Mr.. Davis, and
their spokesmen, have been very So
licitous of the farm leaders. They
seem to be pretty well agreed that
agriculture is a big question in the
coming election, and that the real
battle is to be fought out in the
Northwest
Now let's look broadly at the whole
subject of agricultural legislation. At
every session of Congress we have
this great clamor for legislation.
Most of it does not amount to any
thing. Usually 1t is associated with
times Of emergency. When we find
the farmer in bad shape there comes
host of legislation, nominally to
give him relief, but in reality to
curry his favor.
In the first session of the present
Sixty-eighth Congress. up to February
Is last, there were introduced some
600 agricultural bills, most of them
pointing an emergency and seeking
large appropriations.
Take seven of these-the Norbeck-
Burtness bill, the McNary-Haugen
bill, the Norris-Sinclair bill, the
Christopherson stabilization commits
sion bill, the Gooding wheat stabili-
zation bill, the Sinclair cotton and
wool price bill and the Swank ware
house building bill-and you will find
proposals totaling $2.275,000, 900.
either in capitalization or direct
appropriations from the Treasury.
This shows in the main that there
is really no logical reason why the
bulk of these bills should be intro
duced at all. In the last session of
Congress the McNary-Haugen bill
was defeated, although it had solid
support from the Northwest and solid
opposition from the Industrial North
east and the South. The Norbeck-
Burtness bill. which proposed loans
to diversity production. was defeated
by people who thought that If this
bill passed it would hurt the chances
for getting the McNary-Haugen agri-
cultural export corporation bill
through.
Mostly Die in Committee.
These two measures. with the Nor
ris-Sinclair Government marketing
corporation proposal, were the only
ones to receive serious consideration