Evening star., 1927-02-25

cost, ina II the ma 1Ority or tnem 0id
not attend the convention the delibera-
tions would not represent the voice Of
the producers. II such relief as that
contemplated by the general plan of
this bin were desirable. 1t would be
extremely unwise to hamper it with
this most cumbersome and awkward
provision. the compliance with which
is made mandatory rs condition
precedent to the opera ton of the law.
1t is impossible to see how such
conventions of producers could ever
be held The bill does not say dele
gates: it says producers the farm
efs themselves. and if a ma ioi'ity of
them must meet in State convention it
is entirely dnworkabIe
Variance In Corn Crop.
Corn is a crop that varies between
$500 600. 900 and 1000 900 900 bushels
per year, ard the normal export is
very small. The reason then for
operating this bill on corn would not
grow out OF the expoitable surplus,
but, according to the definition i'm see.
ton (c) t2). would grow out of q
surplus sbove the requii enents for
orderly marketing. The marketing of
corn would, include marketing to a
purchaser TO feed to cattle and hogs,
so that situation might arise where
there would he surplus above the
requirements for orderly marketing.
The act then could he put into opet-
alton as to corn under all the different
kinds of agreements. But the vast
expense of financing the operations
of these agencies in the corn market
would b9 charged not against the en-
tire commodity, but against that part
of the commodity which is used for
milling or processing or that is trans
ported by common carrier. This,
according to statistics. amounts only
to some IL to 20 per cent of the corn
produced.
THAT the equalization fee is not
laid on the entire commodity is not
apparent from a casual reading of the
act. But close study shows that
section 10 provides that there shall
be paid an equalization fee upon
one Of the following: The Transports
t1on, processing or sale of such unit
There Is no other wa-i to collect the
fee. If that stood alone, then all the
corn would be subject to the fee unless
it were used by the raiser, but. section
Is % says:
an the case of corn, the
term processing" means milling for
market of corn or the first
processing. in any manner for mar
tet Of corn not so milled, and
he term sale" means the sale or
other disposition in the United States.
OF corn for milling or other
processing for market for resale. or
for delivery by common car
rier >"
Notes an Exception.
so. unless the corn is processed or
sold for milling or other processing
for market or Is transported by com
mon carrier, 1t is not subject to the
equalization fee. But the great bulk
of it. which is neither processed nor
transported by common carrier, is
free from the equalization fee
"The only figures in the debates
with reference to corn are some esti-
mates based solely upon exportable
surplus, which really form no basis
for the present proposed plan based
on desire for orderly marketing and
not for controlling the small export
able surplus. While 1t is difficult to
estimate the burden of this equaliza-
tion fee. which must be borne for the
entire crop by this small proportion.
the simplest calculation will show
that the amount per bushef neces-
sarily would be tremendous. SO that
the market of corn for milling and
other processing and for transpOrta-
ton would be entirely dislocated The
provisions Of the present measure
with reference to an equalization fee
on corn must not be confused with
the other measures which have been
proposed, for the reason that former.
measures put the burden upon the
entire crop, but this measure i'm un-
dertaking TO place the duty of col
lecting payments on the professor has
reached this disastrous result"
Argument Questioned.
ut is no answer to say that the
corn producers would induce their
advisory council and the members of
the board from their land-bank dis
trictS to exclude corn from the opera
ton Of this bill, because the people
who do not pay an equalization fee
and ON whom the burden does not fall
are 80 or IS per cent of the producers
of the corn
"ItA may be contended that since
there is to be an equalization fee on
swine the feeders would be taxed,
but the swine and corn are separate
units and have a separate stabiliza-
ton fund and under the law the fees
on swine cannot be turned in to the
stabilization fund for corn.
I'm figuring the percentage of the
corn crop upon which the fee would
fall. while it is possible that the fee
might fall on corn carried by a. COM
mon carrier, it is doubtful whether
any board would lay q tax on trans.
portation where the corn was being
transported to be sold to feeders. If
they did, of course, the result would
be that to avoid the fee in most cases
the seller would not transport by a
common carrier.
Free Movement Hampered."
''It is not enough to say that the
right to put the equalization fee on
swine would adjust the inequalities
between those bearing the burden and
those not bearing the burden, first,
because the board might commence
operating as to corn and not desire
to operate or be permitted to operate
as to swine. However, much OF the
corn would be fed to cattle and live
stock other than swine. and there il
no right to bring the products Of live
stock other than swine under the
provisions of the law With a re-
quirenient for a fee on part of the
corn crop and no fee on the balance,
the free movement and dealing in
that commodity would be hampered
to an almost unbearable extent. 1t
would take a horde of inspectors to
assure the payment of the fee on the
particular corn required to bear 1t.
IA feeder OF cattle who had the
necessary machinery to grind or crush
his corn bought from other farmers
for feeding purposes would be able
to market his cattle free from the cost
-