Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-08-15
A Fantastic Proposal.

Sentiment among the Governors OF
the cotton-growing States appears TO
be decidedly adverse to the proposal
Of the Farm Board that one-third Of
the cotton crop now growing be de-
stroyed In an effort to "avert an eco
ncFnic disaster" In that section. The
Farm Board suggested that every third
row Of the crop be plowed under In
order to keep the cotton OF the market
and thus prevent drop of prices far
below the present extremely low level.
Il did not undertake, indeed it could
not have undertaken, to put such q
proposal into effect. Nobody can do
that but the cotton growers themselves.
Not even the Governors of the States
could make the planters destroy one
third Of their crops. They could only
recommend. They might unite in a
Joint proclamation, but even so their
deliverance would be no more than
advisory. Short of the purchase Of
the standing crop by the States for
the purpose Of partial destruction
there could be no aSsuredly uniform
REIMBURSEMENT Of q portion OF the
growing cotton.
So utterly improbable Of success was
such . plan that its proposal seems
fantastic. The destruction Of grow
ing crop for the purpose Of booming
on maintaining prices, furthermore, Is
...e....., -, The ftYr.Aa xranyafa1 YVrfYlpirIhS
Of economies. just 30 is the destruc-
ton Of food supplies to keep the prices
from dropping. The other day in one
Of the larger American ports several
eargoes of bananas were taken out to
sea and dumped overheard because the
price In the market was lower than
the importers were willing to face upon
the unloading of their goods. Such a
waste Is abhorrens to the sense Of
justice. With people in want Of food
destruction for price fixing is revolving.
Disaster from flooding OF the cot
ton market with an unwanted crop
would be no greater than the damage
done to tbs economic morale Of the
country by 90 costly q waste of mate
rial and labor rs the. destruction Of
cne-third Of the growing cotton would
entail. II cotton is superduous, so is
wheat, In terms OF the prevailing and
prospective prices. II cotton can be
destroyed for the sake Of that market,
Why should not the surplus wheat be
burned OF turned back on the soil?
There Is wide and vital difference
between crop destruction and crop
limitation by agreement. There is lit
tie difference between crop destruction
after planting and price fixing ahead
Of the market. Is there TO be price
hxing for cotton by Government ac-
tAon7 II 20. why should the action be
limited TO eOtton7 why should not the
Government undertake to set the
prices FOR al commodities Of necessity?
Is there to be . ''five-year plan here,
with quantities and rates regulated by
the state?
These questions strike at the root Of
TIE evil Of Government action that
seeara. directly or indirectly, to control
production and prices. Il Is evident
tllas mistake Of Judgment was made
By the cotton growers OF the South in
the matter Of planting. Are they will
ing to have that mistake corrected at
sfas cost Of the virtual dictation Of the
price through the destruction Of sum-
cient quantity on percentage Of the crop
10 prevent q food and q disastrous
drop IN the market2 And what Of the
consumer. the user Of cotton, who must
eventually pay the higher price be-
cause Of the destruction OF one-third
OF the growing crop7 Is he not en-
titled TO considerations If 80, may
there not be . demand from him, an
organized demand. for price fixing at
the other end OF the scale?
The whole thing Is uneconomic and
unsafe. The part Of wisdom Is 10 drop
the proposal As impracticable and dan
gerOus.