The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1927-11-02
Dogs in the Farmers Manger
MINNEAPOLIS journal


Do the members of the Norris group really
want farm relief measure to become law
| in advance of next summers Republican Ma
tional Convention?
! Or are they we'll satisfied, down in their
hearts, with the prospect that, owing to their
own stubbornness, the forthcoming session of
congress will place on the statute books no con-
structive agricultural legislation?
And, if so, is it because they believe that
this prospective failure will pour oil on such
prairie fires as they have succeeded in kind
ling, and hence strengthen the chance-at pres
ent extremely slender-that their candidate,
Uncle George Norris, will win the nomination ?
In short. which do they want the more, re-
lief for the farmer, or an issue for 1923?
The implication contained in the last half of
the question is grave one. That professed
friends of the farmer should be averse to see
ing anything done for the farmer, for fear the
amelioration of his condition might knock the
props from under their own selfish plans, would
seem unthinkable, at first glance.
But, before brushing the possibility aside
as too preposterous for examination, let us look
briefly into the evidence. And let us call as
witness Senator Norris himself.
First, says Senator Norris, now in Washing
ton, the friends of the McNary-Haugen plan
are not going to agree to any substitute. They
",
equalization fee and all. They even turn
thumbs down on the equally unsound plan of
the National Grange, calling for what amounts
to an export bounty on farm produce, indi-
rectly paid out of the national treasury, with
no provision for the treasury's reimbursement.
Not because OF the Grange plans unsoundness,
however, but because it is not their measure.
In this view, incidentally, the Nebraskan is in
full accord with the most recent views of Sen
ator McNary.
In one breath, then, Senator Norris makes
it known that there is to be no compromise
as to those features of the McNary-Haugen
plan that led to its veto by President Coolidge
last winter.
And in the very next breath, he makes it
known that he is certain the president will
again veto the measure, and that it will again
be impossible to muster sufficient votes to re-
pass it over the veto.
In other words, Senator Norris and his fol-
lowers know that their bill cannot become a
law. But at the same time they are unwilling
to stand out OF the way and permit the pass
age of some farm relief measure that can be-
come law.
TO retort that they are sincerely convinced
that no substitute would do agriculture as
much good as would the McNary- Haupen plan.
does not suffice. They must admit that sub
stitute plan would do the farmer some good.
But whatever benefits such a substitute would
confer on agriculture, are to be denied the
farmer. The farmer, says Senator Norris in
effect, cannot get the McNary-Haugen brand
OF relief at this session, therefore he is not 90
ing to be permitted to have any relief.
Which once more brings up the question: Do
the members Of the Norris group really want
to help the farmer, or are they interested
chiefly in keeping the issue open until next
summer, in the interest of Norris prospective
presidential candidacy?
Are they prepared now to play dog-in-the-
manger, to bite the hand Of the farmer reach
ing for relief, just to make him mad enough
to support their candidate?