Evening star., 1932-02-15

Ruling by a Texas court declaring as
unconstitutional the law providing for
compulsory reduction of cotton crops is
accepted as likely to end all efforts to
curtail production b. law 1t is recog-
niZed, however that the emergency still
exists and that the remedy will be
found IN voluntary action by banking
Interests and business men.
AS was expected by practically
every body concerned excepting the Leg
isl2tures personnel supporting it and
percentage of their constituencies" says
the Fort Worth Telegram. the
statute has been declared unconstitu-
tCnal by the first district judge to re-
ce.ve a test case This is democracy.
If We were privileged to employ die
tator, he might effect a number CT
valuable reforms before succumbing to
opposition. but even that is doubtful" !"
The Star Telegram, nevertheless, main
tainS that every bit of common sense
within the vast area of the cotton belt
of the S-uthern States cries out insist
emily against more too much cotton at
the end of the present crop season"
The court" according to the Atlanta
Journal, has refused to sacrifice bull
Wark Of human liberty for makeshift
of feverish politics That paper also
comm on sense and economic necessity.
working through the channels of credit.
will materially reduce the planting Of
cott2n this spring: but that will be
quite different. in a matter like this,
from the States debating to the thou
sands of farmers in Texas. regardless of
tteir diverse conditions. what they shall
and shall not do with their land. When
the growers. the bankers and the
merchants in a particular county or
district come together for free discus
sion of plans for the 1882 crop, they
can make adjustments suited to local
and individual needs: but blanket
law imposing upon all farmers. all fields
and all problems the same absolute pro-
hibition would be. in the nature CT
Even if it were judicially sustained, it
would be practically impossible"
Similar test cases probably will be
brought in all States having such laws, ="
thinks the Pasadena Star-NeWs, with
the conclusion as to this form of legis-
lati2n: The attempt to curtail produc-
ton of any given crop by legislative
ceed, the same course might be at
tempted in other crops which are
overproduced - wheat or other farm
staples. While the benefits derivable
from restricted production of certain
crops cannot be denied, yet it is a
serious matter indeed to say by law to
farmers, you may plant just so much
Of this crop, and no more. This comes
very close to being a violation of the
spirit of the Bill Of Rights"
Cotton production in the cotton
growing States" in the opinion of the
Columbia Record, ought to be cur
tailed, but it must be curtaileA
by other than legislative means"
The Record states that in the Texas
case the county attorney plans to ap-
peal. but while the appealing is going
on cotton may be planted. Before the
last appeal may be decided the cotton
can be picked and ginned. The first
step in appeal is to the Court OF Civil
Appeals. the second step the Texas
Supreme Court, and the third the
United States Supreme Court. And
there Is federal question involved; any
good lawyer can find federal question
In case" The Record offers review
of the cotton reduction campaigns TO
, the present time: 'Mississippi's curtail-
n ent law is dead: Louisiana's is re-
pealed; Texas tied up in court; but
South Carolina still experiments with
the idea. On the House calencar is q
bD committing South Carolina to the
Texas plan. 1t may be that South
/ Cardinals legislators learned ncthing
from their special session. and that this
bill, dead bill, null and void will be
passed to supplant the dead cotton pro-
Elbition act that was the product of the