Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-04-28

the decline in agriculture. in another
way One can say that in the Dos farm
ers were so per cent of the total popula-
ton. had so per cent part in the ma
tional life, had so per cent of the polit-
ical power BY 1920 the farmers were less
than 80 per cent Of the population had
less than a 80 per cent part in the
national life, less than 80 per cent of
the political power
This condition. that agriculture as
an industry is not growing but declin-
ing. is an accepted fact. 1t is repeated
mere only for its aid in Qualification.
Will He Be Satisfied?
Does the individual farmer care
whether his industry is growing one
or not? If he himself. AS an individual
farmer, is made individually more pros
perous-will he be satisfied with farm
relief which brings that about? And
does he care whether there are more
farmers or not whether agriculture is
a growing industry or not?
If the farmer will be satisfied to be
made individually more prosperous.
then he will probably be pleased with
the present legislation in Congress, for
that has a reasonable chance to achieve
the result.
6uL III Tie IIlSlSJS IIldt LllS
industry shall be a growing one, then
the pending legislation will not do the
work and no variation of farm relief
now in sight will do the work The
proposal of the old McNary- Haugenites.
including their equalization fee" would
not make things growing industry
though the old McNary- HaugeniteS
sincerely thought it would.
The McNary- Haugenites knew-and
were right in this-that agriculture can
only be a growing industry by being
an exporting industry. They knew that
If agriculture is to grow. 1t must sell
a surplus abroad-'exportable surplus"
was a phrase running through all their
speeches and literature. They knew.
however, that such surplus sold abroad
must be sold at loss. And so they
devised an ingenious mechanism. the
equalization fee," by which the losses
abroad should be assessed against all
of us here at home, and particularly
against the farmer himself.
Fee" Would Not Work.
The equalization fee would not have
worked. No system will work by which
farmers sell abroad at loss. The coun-
try would not go on with it. The
farmers themselves would not go on
with it.
But--and here is the root of the
maternity is it that agriculture cam
not successfully have an exportable sur
plus, while other industries can?
Why is it that the steel industry can
sell abroad. and by so doing prosper
greatly? Why is it that, as respects
every industry except agriculture-the
bigger the exportable surplus the bet
ter? Why do we all cheer the auto
mobile manufacturers and the steel
makers on to sell more and more
abroad-whereaS, we tell the farmer
that his exportable surplus is burden
and a mistake? Why Is it that the
farmers expOrtable surplus must be
recognized as meaning loss, while
every other industrys exportable sur
plus is recognized as benefit?
To put 1t very tersely. what is this
queer distinction which marks of
farming from other industries. as re-
soccts the exportable surplus? Why is
i that every other industry can sell
broad and get away with it" richly,
1l'ile agriculture, apparently. cannot?
To answer that question is to clarity
the whole situation.