The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1924-04-09
ChdS. Brand
Defends Bill
EXPERT SAYS
McNARY-HAUGEN BILL is
BENEFICIAL MEASURE.

Charles ]. Brand, consulting spe-
cialist at the department of agricul-
ture who is probably more familiar
with the proposal than any one else
in Washington today, consented to
explain some of the provisions Of the
McNary Haugen Bill. Mr.. Brand is
the brother of DR.. w. A. Brand of
Redwood Falls.
''If people will only read the bill
and examine it carefully" he said,
"they will not find on reflection the
imaginary dangers they think they
see. For instance, it has been said
the bill would put the grain ex-
changes and the traders out of bust
ness. It will not. The United States
agricultural export corporation will
act through existing trade bodies an
organizations. The corporation is
to be actuarial and not a trade body
itself. One thing it may do, admit.
1t may reduce the amount of f1uctua-
ton in grain prices due to world
rumors but the exchange will always
be influenced by domestic factors and
rumors.
'What is proposed in the McNary-
Haugen bill is nothing more nor less
than what the agricultural co-opera-
tives now are doing. We simply
would buy the exportable surplus of
wheat for the farmer, not out of
government funds, but out of funds
provided by the farmer himself and
when the time for settlement comes
at the end of the year the farmer
would get his patronage dividend
as the farm co-operatives call it In
the form of participation certificates
which is better name for what has
been suggested than scrip.
"It is mistake to attribute to
these participation certificates any
legal tender value. They will be
commercial paper pure and simple.
have heard statements that the
farmers wouldn't accept these GER
tificates. But let US take an actual IL
lustration of how the bill would work.
Suppose farmer has 1000 bushels of
wheat to sell. The domestic price is
ST.. The ratio price of wheat to other
commodities would call for a price of
$1.5O bushel, if things were normal.
But instead of paying the farmer that
amount in cash, or $4,000, he would
be paid, for illustration, about $2,7OO.
The remaining $500 would be with
held and in it's place he would be
given participation certificate
Now how would we determine the
value of that certificate at the end
of the season? We are producing
about 750,OO0,OOO bushels of wheat
of which 150,OO0,00O bushels would
be the estimated amount needed for
export, based on previous years fig
ureS.
"But in the export market we would
have to sell at loss, say at dollar
a bushel. This would mean a total
loss of about $75,0OO,OOO. Add to
that an approximate cost Of $15,000,-
900 as the expense of the corporation,
though l believe it would be lower
than that, and you have a total cost
of $90,000,00O. But if out of total
production of 750,000,000 bushels, you
withhold Is cents a bushel from the
farmer for the equalization fund, you
will have on hand about $112,500, 900.
Subtracting the 10000 900 of expense,
it leaves $22,50O,000 in your fund and
dividing that sum by the number of
participation certificates gives the
value of each, which in this case.
would be about two cents bushei as
the final value or eacn certlncaCe.
That would mean for the 1000 bu-
shells total of $50 in addition to
his original $2,700 or $3.50 in all.
Now compare that with present con-
ditions when this farmer gets, at pre-
sent prices, approximately $4,000 for
the crop. Wouldn't he accept
scheme that assures him of more than
he is getting? | am sure he will
Mr. Brand denied that the plan in
terferes withthe prerogatjsesF Con-
gress in fixing tariffs, and said that
just as Congress had delegated au-'
thority in the case of present flexible
provision of the tariff act, it could
give the proposed corpor alton au-
thority to raise the tariff within
certain measurable proportion.
Continued on last page)