Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1924-04-13
ny SHELDON :. CLINE.

fixing?
That is the question which must be
answered in considering the McNary-
Haugen bill. now pending before Con-
eress and backed by one of the most
powerful and most skillful propa-
ganda organizations ever brought to
bear in support of a Legislative meas
ure. One member of the Presidents
cabinet, the Secretary of Agriculture
has declared for it. The Senate COM
mittee on agriculture has reported
faVorably upon it, 1t is now being
partly rewritten by the House COM
mittee on agriculture, but a majority
of the members of that committee are
counted as champions of it's essential
features.
Must BE Taken Seriously.
1t will not do to dismiss the Nc
Nary Haugen bill as a piece of wild
eyed radicalism. 1t will avail nothing
to denouce its proponents as hair
Drained fanatics. Those are the tao
tics which some opponents of the
bill are adopting. and they are max
ing d fearful mistake. There is no
Surer way of driving it through both
houses of Congress and placing the
President in a position where he either
must sign it or face the wrath
of an outraged west. For those who
are back of the McNary- Haugen bill
are in deadly earnest. Party politics
mean nothing to them, and the politi-
cal fortunes of individuals, however
highly placed, mean even less. They
have sold" their program to an over
whelming majority of farm organiza-
ttons, and these organizations are
selling it to the individual farmer.
Farmers in general, and wheat
growers in particular, are flooding
their representatives in Congress with
demands that this measure shall be
enacted into law. That the program
IS "unsound" is not an answer that
will satisfy the farmers. They are
tired of being told that measures for
their relief do not meet the approval
of high-brow economists. The wheat
growers are desperately sick and they
feel that some desperate remedy is
just what they need. They are not
terrified by threats that such a rem
edy may react to their disadvantage
in the future. They are in no mood
to subscribe to medical logic
which would permit a man to die
rather than risk administering to him
a habit-forming drug. A man facing
death today can't be expected to get
much worked up over what may hap
pen in the world tomorrow
Must Find Another Way.
If there is no other way in which
wheat growers can be rescued from
their present plight. opponents of the
kIcNary- Haugen bill haven't a leg
TO stand upon. In such Case. opposi-
ton to the bill would be an appalling
political and social crime, for it
would mean condemnation of millions
of honest, loyal Americans to utter
and hopeless ruin. If the McNary-
Haugen bill were the only way, no
man should balk at possible conse-
quences, for no consequences could be
IS dreadful as the future which the
wheat growers would face. But is
the McNsry-Haugen bill the only
way? BY the answer to that question
the case must stand or fall.
1t is contended by proponents of the
McNary-Hausen bill, and admitted by
its opponents, that the difficulties of
the wheat farmer arise from the fact
that the exportable surplus of his
crop must be sold in the world mar
ket in competition with wheat which
costs less to produce, and that the
Price he receives for export wheat
determines the price he receives for
the larger portion of his crop which
is consumed at home. So far there is
no dispute. 1t also is contended and
conceded that the price the American
farmer receives for wheat today is
less than the cost of production; that
II is less than its fair ratio price
when compared with other commodi-
ties, and that the farmer cannot con-
tinue to grow wheat unless something
is done either to enhance it's price or
TO lower the cost of production and
the farmers cost of living. The diff
ference of opinion arises as to what
can and should be done to remedy
this condition.
SlruAn8u As TO wheat.
Here is the wheat situation, without
attempted exactness as to bushels or
slight variations in price: The Ameri-
can wheat crop is $50, 100000 bushels
and the American market consumes,
including seed wheat, 10000, 900
bushels, leaving 15o.ooo,ooo bushels
for export 1t is a fundamental eco
nomic law that the price at which a
surplus must be sold determines the
price for the entire crop, provided,
OF course, that the surplus is large
enough to be a factor in the market.
1t costs the American farmer S1.15 to
produce a buShel Of wheat. 1t costs
farmers in Canada, in Argentina, in
India and elsewhere enough less to
grow wheat so that they can sell it
at 81 bushel and still make a, profit
Therefore, the Liverpool price of
wheat, which Is the world price, Is 81
a bushel. The American farmer has
to sen his $50, 900, 900 bushels of export
wheat at the Liverpool price. and be-
ca1se he can get only 81 a bushel for this
he gets only 81 a bushel for the 700,-
100000 bushels consumed at home.
He receives, therefore, $S5o,eoo. 900
for a crop which has cost him $751;
50o,ooo to grow, net loss Of s127.-
50o,ooo on his years operations. Is it
any wonder the wheat farmer is will
ling to take chances with a remedy
however seemingly desperate?
Hare is the remedy which the Nc
.Nary-Haugen bill prescribes for him:
L. 10 sat