Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-01-22
SENATE BODY Q. KS
FARM RELIEF BILL
Agriculture Committee Backs
MCNary-Haugen Measure,
Reported in House.
By the Associated Press.

By the Associated Press
The McNary-Haugen farm relief bill
was approved today by the Senate
agriculture committee, which added
It's Endorsement to that already given
the measure in a majority report of
the House agriculture committee.
AS reported the bill would set up
Federal farm board, which would
use Federal appropriation of $3.50.
000, 900 to handle the surplus of
wheat, corn, rice, cotton and swine.
The Federal appropriation would he
reimbursed by the collection of an
equalization fee on each commodity at
the processing point.
Opposition Is Voiced.
Describing the new McNary-Hau-
gen bill as "more objectionable and
certainly more unconstitutional than
its predecessor of last Spring. mi
nority report signed by three mem
bers of the House agricultural COM
mittee was filed with the House today
seeking instead the enactment of the
Curtis Crisp bill. The latter measure
was held up as "a constitutional and
constructive measure upon the only
this question leads us to believe can
prove successful"
The report was written by Repre-
sentative Fort, Republican, New Jer-
sey. Representatives Tichner, Repub-
lican, Kansas, and Pratt, Republican,
New York, added their signatures.
The two measures in controversy
are unlike in several respects, but the
most important of these is the equal
ization fee by which the McNary -Hau-
gen bill would control crop surpluses.
The Curtis-Crisp plan omits this fea-
ture.
Price Fixing Seen.
In addition to declaring the fee to be
a tax and unconstitutional, the minor
ity report said the bill containing it
was a price fixing measure; that it
would upset all existing trade chan
nels, kill cooperative marketing or
ganizations and increase production If
it actually succeeded in increasing
prices.
The method of selecting the Federal
board to administer the McNary-Hau
gen plan also was assailed as uncOn-
stitutional because it tended 20 inter
fere with the Presidents S constitutional
right to appoint Government officials
without advice except from the Sen
ate.
The equalization fee was described
as clearly tax" no different from
that levied by municipalities to pro-
vide money for sinking funds.
Opinion on Cotton Fee.
"As to cotton" the minority de-
clared, 1--WE are inclined to believe the
fee as a tax is constitutional since it
reaches the entire production and
every producer. AS to wheat, corn
and rice, however, the bill has been
carefully drawn both to exclude any
interest of the producer in any bal
ance in the equalization fund and to
eliminate the possibility of the fee
being levied against processing by the
producer or against sales from one
farmer to another"
Certainly" the report said, when
clearly constitutional means can be
found for the handling of the prob
lem, ordinary common sense would
dictate a preference for their use."
These means were held TO be en-
bodied in the Curtis-Crisp measure,
and while this bill, too, calls upon the
Treasury for a large appropriation,
the protesting members believe that
under such a bill losses to the Gov
1Continued on Page 8, Column ~