Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-09-30
JARD|NE ANSWERS
!. SMITH ON FARM AID
Says Nominee DiStorts Views
of Republican Leaders
on Issue.
Secretary of Agriculture Jardine yes

Secretary OF Agriculture Jardine yes
,fday charged Gov. Smith with dis
! iorting the views of Herbert Hoover,
! President Coolidge and himself on farm
relief. and called on the Democratic
nominee to clarity his own stand on
agriculture.
Secretary Jardine declared that Gov.
Smith either ignorantly misunder-
, stands or deliberately nlisrepresents"
Hoovers. the administrations attitude
toward the farmer. and asserted that
In the governors st. Paul speech
phrases were taken from the context
Of Republican statements 80 as to
entirely reverse their meaning"
so far as farm relief is concerned"
Secretary Jardine said. Gov. Smith
must be either for the McNary- Haugen
bill or against It, He hasn't yet had
the courage to say which Is his posi-
ton. He says he is for the principles.
but against the method. What. II any
thing, does this mean? Those who pro-
posed that measure in the last Congress
were so sure that the equalization fee
was the only way of putting the Nc
Nary Haugen principles into practice
that they openly declared for the equal
tzation fee or nothing"
Asks For His Plans.
Gov. Smith is quoted as saying in an
interview that there were four or FIVE
methods of putting the McNary -Haugen
principles into practice. II he does
not favor the equalization fee, the only
plan anybody has yet proposed for
effecting the principles of the plan,
what are the other four or five ways of
doing it? challenge him to name one
Of them.
Another thing that Gov. Smith
wants TO do for the farmers is to put
more OF them back on the farm. He
complains that 1000, 900 have left the
farms during the Republican admins
tration. The number Is actually only
slightly over 100000. but 20 per cent
Is small margin of error for the gov
ernor. During this period the indi-
vidual farmer has become Is per cent
more efficient under the opportunities
Afforded during the Republican adj
ministration. Does the governor want
a still heavier surplus of agricultural
products and with 1t the lowering of
the standard OF living that would neces-
sarily follow the return of these former
farmers to agriculture?
GOV. Smith, in his acceptanct
speech, said he would not change tariff
schedules to an extent that would in
terfere with business, including the
business OF farming. However, in a
public address in October, 1924. Gov
Smith said that the Republican tariff
Is taking money from the pockets q;
the poor, and In an authorized inter-
view In the April. l. 1928. issue of the
Industrial Digest, he said. Necessary
items by the hundreds are unnecessa-
rily taxed by the tariff beet.
sugar. vegetables are among
the important staples taxed At the ex-
2ense Of every individual and family
in the United States
Against Wheat Tariff.
'Mr. Smith further said at Omaha
that President Coolidge made an empty
gesture when he increased the duty on
wheat to A cents bushel. He said
1t might as well have bsen increased
to $142. In other words. the Governor
OF New York would wipe out TIE tariff
on wheat. Would the producers of
hard wheat. especially in North Da-
kota and Montana, like to have the
tariff reduced to admit Canadian
wheat?
Would the governor remove the
tariff on beef to permit entry of
cheaper beef from South America, and
would he remove the tariff on milk
and dairy products to permit entry of
goods from Canada and from across
the Atlantic? He certainly would. The
only tariff benefit that the Democratic
party has ever contemplated for agri.
culture is the removal of the tariff on
agricultural products. Most agricul-
tural products were put on the free
list in the Underwood tariff act.
Gov. Smith misrepreSents another
xxyl, he
says he can find only one legislative en-
actment in the record of Washington
with respect to interior waterways-the
recent act for the control of floods on
the Mississippi If his statement IS
sincere, he is grossly ignorant of the
important fact that the rivers and
harbors appropriat ton bills have carried
for the past seven years provision for
systematic development of our inland
waterways and that under the general
plans for the completion of these
waterways laid out by the United States
engineers they are we'll on the road to
completion.
He says there is no plan, no COM
prehensive scheme of waterways i'm
provement. He tries to make out that
Mr.. Hoover has never outlined any
project or method for covering this
problem. He apparently has never seen
what the people of the Mississippi,
Valley have seen; that is, the systemati,
campaign carried on for a period OF two
years in securing plan for development
OF our interior waterways and the st.
Lawrence waterway. If Mr.. Hoover has
not taken the leading part in improving
waterways. who has? Certainly not Gov.
Smith,
.