Evening star., 1931-12-07

| The report before the Senate Com
| mittee of Agriculture on the operations
| Of the Federal Farm Board by its chair
man, James G. Stone, Is received by the
country with comments which indicate
that the publication of facts had little
effect on the sentiment of supporters
and opponents of this Government
activity The estimated expenditure Of
| SIT, 100000 in the interest of wheat
and cotton stabilization comes In for
sharp adverse criticism from those op-
posing Governments efforts In this di-
| rection, while those supporting the
board point out that its financial record
does not compare unfavorably with that
of other businesses in the same period
and hold that through its efforts the
| farmers have received assistance during
| time of depression.
As to the appraisal of the worth of
the board by those most concerned the
farmers, and their reaction to efforts to
abandon it. the Des MoineS Tribune,
holding that 'the imbecility of their
joining those who want nothing done
really to help agriculture, for the pur-
pose of destroying what little has been
done, has not escaped the majority of
the farmers" AYERS that farm organ
izations are wisely concentrating now,
not on destroying the act and the board,
but on improving them" The Cleve-
land News contends that since the
mission OF the board was largely expert
mental, it must stand on its record"
and that Its future course must be
determined by measuring accurately its
limitations and possibilities.
Referring to the boards activities in
the agricultural markets, the Philadel-
phia Evening Bulletin declares: Ram
ifications of finance prevent the state
ment that the Stabilization efforts,
though failures in their direct purpose,
were without benefits to agricultural
regions and the whole country 1t has
been repeatedly stated that the huge
purchases OF grain and cotton surpluses
stayed financial chaos that would
have wrecked countless banks and
added to all phases of depression" On
the other hand. the Chicago Daily
News concludes: Whether the stabili-
cation operations prevented the ruin
OF thousands of rural banks and hosts
of farmers. as some assert, Is a de-
batahle question. Manifestly, such
claim cannot be refuted. Neither can
it be proved. Further, there Is no
justification for the use of agricultural
funds in savings banks for ill-advised
loans, " In the future the Farm
Board must be limited to tasks which
do n9t involve speculation in agricul-
tural products, huge revolving funds
and vain attempts to maintain artifi-
cial prices in international markets. ;"
The report, while revealing poten-
tial losses OF large proportions in the
opinion Of the Hartford Times, "also
contains good reasons for keeping the
board in action to overcome part of
these, adverse operations. AS prices
are nct likely to go lower, one almost
dares to say, the Federal Farm Board
stands to lose little and may gain some
or much i'll being continued in exis-
tence 1t looks as If. by opening the
books, Chairman Stone had saved the
boards life at least for another year
or two" The Dayton Daily News re-
marks: The losses of the whole coun-
try from speculation In stocks have to-
tailed, since the panic began 25 months
FARM Board wants to defend itself, it
can point out that 1t hasn't done SO
much worse than the rest of us"
The report shows that 730 900 farm
ers now belong to the cooperative asso-
ciatiens working under the boards di-
rection,' asserts the San Antonio Ex-
press, with the comment that 'tthe
farmers are learning that by thus
working together they can exercise
some control over their markets-which
may enable them, in more favorable
season, to make up for previous losses |
The Fort Wayne News-Sentinel quotes: |
Even cne of the boards most lard- |
boiled critics acknowledges that the |
extent to which the farmer has been
legitinately assisted in his crying need |
the better syStemattZed and ehean
ened marketing of his produ-te-can |
be recognizA as help which should |
be retained. Either through this board |