Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-07-17
McNARY.HAUCEN MEASURE
!, EXPECTED TO PASS AGAIN
Backers OF Bill May Force 1t Through
With Two Features of First
ess,ses Plan Removed.

will do for the farmer what the tariff
act and the restrictive immigration
| laws have done for industry and labor
and what the transportation act has
! done for the railroads.
| 1t is true that the tariff really has
| helped the farmer far more than the
supporters of the McNaryHaugen bill
! are willing to admit, as an eXamina-
| ton Of the records will show. But
| there are dyed.in-the-wool McNary-
Haugenites who threaten to destroy
the protective tariff system if they
cannot have their bill enacted into
| law. Such a course. destroying the
purchasing power of the industrial
workers, would be a terrible blow to
| the farmers. who, after all. must sell
their produce in the domestic market,
except for a small fraction which goes
abroad.
The Curtis-Crisp bill, which has fire..
| quently been referred to as the ad.
ministration substitute for the Nc
Nary-Haugen bill. but for which the
| administration did not lift its finger
actively at the last session Of Con-
gress, bears much resemblance to the
McNary-Haugen bill. 1t does not,
however, possess the equalization fee
principle of the McNary.Haugen bill.
Both bills contain the same declara.
ton Of principles, both set up Fed
eral Farm Board and both authorize
the appropriation Of $3.50, 100000 to be
used as revolving fund to aid the
farmers in the disposition of surplus
crops and more orderly marketing.
Would Limit Production.
The Curtis Crisp bill authorizes the
| formation of corporations, with the
cooperative associations of farmers
| as the sole stockholders. The corpo-
! rations could deal in any agricultural
commodity not subject to spoilage. in
stead of the five commodities specified
in the McNary.Haugen bill. They
make purchases, however, only when
prices threaten to fall below or do
fall below the cost Of production to
the average producer. To overcome
the impetus to larger production
under such system, the Curtis-Crisp
bill provides that advances may be
made from the revolving fund only SO
long as the ensuing production of the
commodities does not show an in.
crease in planting or breeding accord
ing to estimates of the Department of
Agriculture.
The main difference in the two bills
is found in the equalization fee ear
ried in the McNary- Haugen bill. I'm
der that system the loss, if any, would
be met in the end by the farmers
themselves. Under the Curtis Crisp
bill, il there were losses, they would
come out of the revolving fund and
the Treasury Of the United States.
There is no way provided to place
the loss on any others in the final
analysis. In effect the Curtis Crisp
bill provides a Government subsidy
for the farmers. It proposes to give
them $3.50, 900. 900 rather than to estab-
fish such a system as the equaliza.
ton fee.
Another main difference between
the two bills is found in the method
OF appointing the members Of the
Federal Farm Board which is to head
the machinery. The board set up by
the Curtis-Crisp bill would have one
member for each of the Federal Land
Bank districts, but no system of nomi-
nation through the farm organiza.
tions as proposed in the McNary bill
is found in the Crisp measure.
Assailed as Unconstitutional.
The McNary-H augen bill has been
asSailed as unconstitutional on two
grounds. First, that the restrictions
pldCSQ upon the ETGSlCenC III appoint
ing members of the Federal Farm
Board constitute an invasion Of the
! powers reserved to the Executive.
Second, the equalization fee involves
an unconstitutional exercise of the
| power to tax.
The supporters of the McNary.
| Haugen bill in st. Paul have agreed
| to do away with the restrictions upon
the appointments to the Federal Farm
| Board by the President. But the
equalization fee, with its questionable
constitutlonality, still remains.
One thing appears reasonably GER
tain. The administration is likely to
face passage again of the McNary-
! Haugen bill il it does not get behind
the Curtis-Crisp substitute, or some
other, and force it through Congress,
as a compromise.
The fight over farm relief legisla-
ton, which is looming, will have its
effect naturally upon the political stu.
| alton. According to the magnitude
Of the revolt will its effect be felt in
the Republican national convention Of
1928, there rather than in the Demo
cratic convention. It may yet have
its influence upon the fate of Presi-
dent Coolidge, although at present
there has been no real uprising
against him in the farm States Of the
! West and Middle West.
1