Evening star., 1932-10-09
The Fate of the Farm Board.

explained that there "is no disagreement
as to the need Of farm relief, the prob.
lem before us becomes one of method by
which relief may be most successfully
brought about"
That, Of course, is the same problem
now. The method proposed by the Presi-
dent in 1929 was the creation Of Fed
eral farm board. There is no single
plan or principle that can be generally
applied" he said, but the major purpose
Of the proposed farm board was re
organization Of the marketing system
on sounder and more stable and more
economic lines"
BY a twist Of fate the major purpose
Of the Farm Board has been pretty
generally overlooked 1t is known now
chiefly for what its critics term its sins,
and not for its virtues of accomplish
ment along the lines originally laid out
for it. Its sins were very accurately
forecast by the President four years ago
With other principles that, he told Con-
gress, must be protected was the prin-
ciple that no governmental agency
should engage in the buying and selling
and price fixing Of products, for such
courses can only lead to bureaucracy and
domination. Government funds should
not be loaned or facilities duplicated
where other such services Of credit and
facilities are available at reasonable
rates. No activities should be set In mo-
ton that will result in increasing the
surplus production, as such will defeat
any plans Of relief"
But the Farm Board has attained its
chief notoriety by doing exactly these
widely ridiculed by those whom it
sought chiefly to serve. The last Con-
gress hamstrung it by cutting its ap-
preparations to the point where VIM
dictiveness, rather than economy
seemed to be the guiding motive. And
at Des Moines, the President, pre-
serving an attitude consistent with his
past views on the subject, joined his
Democratic opponent in his condem-
nation of the boards stabilization pro-
visions. Even indirect purchase and
sale Of commodities is absolutely op-
posed to my theory of government" +"
he said, advocating the repeal Of such
provisions.
In defense of the Farm Board these
stabilization activities are said TO have
been eminently worth while in pre-
venting evils far worse than those with
which the farmer is now too familiar.
1t is another story Of how things might
have been worse
But the question now is whether the
Farm Board, If relieved Of its respon-
sibilities in stabilization efforts, will be
left free to pursue the original OBJ
jective outlined for 1.-THE development
Of cooperative marketing-or whether
it will be cast aside as merely another
plan that would not work.
There are plenty Of critics who will
maintain that it should be thrown out.
The source of such criticism was men,
toned by William F. Schilling, a mem
Der OF the board, IN an address last
week in San Francisco. He pointed
out that producers now are marketing
more and more Of their products
through co-operatives; that the growth
of co-operatives since the Farm Board S
organization has been encouraging and
that membership in co-operatives, due,
in part at least. to the assistance rem
dered by ths Farm Board. has been
substantially increased. But at this
time. he points out. four tobacco COM
panies control about ninety per cent Of
cigarette tobacco consumed in this
country; five companies dominate the
market through their control Of dairy
companies; three dealers handle about
forty per cent of the cotton produced; !;
ten men handle half the wool and four
companies process about two-flfths of
the live stock. This concentrated buy
ing power puts the farmers at its mercy.
As Mr.. Schilling says, the only way for
them to meet 1t is to organize. And
such organization is, of course, opposed
by those who dominate the purchasing
power now.
The Farm Board still has tremend-
GUS field to cultivate in organizing the
farmer and putting him in control of
the things which he must sell If he Is
fo live The work il not fo he Y,er-
formed in few years, nor in a genera
ton. The goal is one that can be
conceivably reached, and probably offers
the broadest and most rational form
of farm relief yet proposed.
The error that has lived to curse the
Farm Board was the setting Of task
that could not under any conditions
be fulfilled. The error has been so
great that it has almost smothered the
Farm Board. And the chief danger OF
any farm relief plan Is that it might
outline an objective which. however
rosy it may appear on paper, can never
be reached. Every such failure will
embitter the farmer, and be more dis
astrous in its reaction upon him
than had no hope Of salvation been
held out at all.
Speculation will become more uncer-