Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1929-05-30

The sterilization feature Of the proposed farm re-
lief bill now before congress Is seen by j. w. Herbert
general manager OF the Yakima CWashD Fruit Grow
ers Association. as a serious threat at existing sue
cessful cooperative marketing organizations and pos
sibly as the death knell Of a movement which rapidly
is proving itself sound.
The creation OF a S500.OOO.O00 loan fund to finance
the purchase OF SURPRISES will bring on a mushroom
crop Of hot -house co-operatives. most Of which must
eventually fail" in the opinion Of MI. Herbert. And
1t is in the failure Of these hot-house co-operatives
that he sees the danger.
ITO discredit the cooperative form OF organiza-
ton in the eyes of the business world would be a Sc
rious thing: to discredit 1t In the eyes OF the producers
would be fatal" is the way he puts 1t.
The law is economically unsound and therefore
doomed to failure. in the opinion of this authority
@The whole scheme is in effect an attempt 70 have
the farmer pull himself out OF the mire by his boot
straps" he declares. The government virtually
washes its hands OF all responsibility and passes the
buck to the cooperative associations by giving them
this huge fund with which to stabilize farming. 1t
they fail. as they probably will, the cooperative move
ment will bear the odiuE of that failure"
He explains his prediction that failure is almost
certain In this manner:
They will fail because the government has laid
down In the law provisions which in fact say that the
government funds shall be used to buy SURPRISES and
sell them presumably at a profit on the domestic and
foreign markets. preferably on the foreign markets.
The inevitable result will be that prices must be
stabilized at a figure that will dispose Of the SURPRISES,
which means that the price for the entire production
must of necessity seek the level fixed by the stabiliza-
tion corporations for the SURPRISES"
There seems 10 be sound reasoning In the conten-
ton OF Mr.. Herbert that were it possible through
enormous credits TO dispose of surplus crops at a
profit 1t would only serve to increase the acreages de-
voted 10 the production Of that crop and further in
crease the surplus in an ever mounting inverted pyra-
mid.
He seems to agree that the real problem is in sur
plus production and that the only real solution is to
be found in reduced farm acreages. Farm relief to
be sound must be based on the knowledge that more
bf certain farm products are being grown than can be
sold with profit to the producer.
The editorial writer in Liberty Magazine this week
proposes as a solution to the problem that a portion
OF the farms in the United States be purchased by
the government and made to lie fallow.
This writer proposes that the government imme-
Stately enter a gigantic program Of public works to
provide employment for farmers and farm labor which
thus would be deprived Of work. The farms pur-
chased. where suitable, might be planted to forest, ne
contends.
The trouble with his solution seems to be about the
same as with the proposal to make the crop profitable
BY price control.
II large farm acreages were purchased and allowed
10 lie idle. ii is likely prices would advance. But what
would prevent farmers from buying other tracts and
beginning farming operations all over again?
The law Of supply and demand is memorable.
The most successful co-operatives in the land have
not been able TO avoid low prices when there was a
surplus OF the commodity in which they were dealing
A cooperative by efficient handling can reduce
selling costs. open and develop new markets and sell
I'm an orderly manner. thus securing for the members
gil the profit possible, considering the size Of the
crop; the officers can study and distribute the asso-
rfation members information regarding probably pro-
ductIon-
More than this none Of them claim to do-more
than this cannot be done.