The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1932-12-12
Official City, State and County
Newspaper
Foreign Representatives
SMALL, SPENCER, BREWER
Uncorporated
CHICAGO NEW YORK BOSTON
Farm Board Recommendations

Farm Board Recommendations
Despite the barrage of propaganda
against further injecting the govern
ment into business, one Of the major
recommendations by the farm board
to the present congress provides for
Just that.
3 Giving its views on needed legisla-
ton, the farm board asked that a
way be found to elevate returns to
farmers from exportable farm prod
ucts SO as to pay the costs on con-
tinuous and self-sustaining basis, and
that it provide an effective system
for regulating acreage or quantities
sold or both. This would provide a
means OF working toward income
elevation as an alternative to the
mere price sterilization for which
the act now provides"
In its next recommendation, the
board asks congress to define the
powers Of the board with respect to
loans to cooperatives so that it
would be definitely authorized to
make loans to cooperative associa-
lions engaged in purchasing equip
ment and materials for farm produc-
tion.'
Therein lies more than a hint of a
new venture into the business field.
Just what are equipment and mate
rails for farm production?"
It is obvious that it would include
all kinds Of farm machinery and ap-
planes, from milk pals to trac-
tors, harvesters and combines. Since
a man must wear clothes to engage
in farming it might include all kinds
of work clothes. He must eat and
it might include the sale Of every
thing needed for complete diet.
Farm production requires that he
live on the farm and a host of arti-
Giles is necessary and helpful to so
doing.
The net result OF favorable action
on the recommendation, it will easily
be seen, might be to place farm CO.
operatives in the field OF purchasing
and distributing goods as we'll as
that Of selling farm produce. Some
of them are doing so now and no one
contests their right to do so, but ap-
parently they are not doing it with
government money. Acceptance of
the boards communications, there
fore. might make the government the
financial sponsor, through loans to
ccoperatives. of a gigantic mercan-
tile business.
Whether or not this is done is
strictly a matter OF policy. There is
nothing in the constitution which
prohibits it.
But before 1t is done it should be
recognized for what it is, a further
injection Of the government into
business and a further development
of the trend which has dominated
governments everywhere, both ma
tional and state, in recent years.
Also before 1t is done, careful re-
view should be made of the history
of cooperative enterprises for the dis
tribution Of merchandise which have
been launched in the past. We have
had some experience with them in
this state, the tag end of the re-
ownership for one of the most i'm
posing having only recently been
disposed of in court in the north
western part Of the state.
Other states also have had expert
cnce with them and note should be
taken Of the results achieved as we'll
as Of the effect which such a govern
ment-backed policy would have
on private mercantile enterprises.
II, when all the facts have been
nlarstaled, it appears to the greatest
good Of the greatest number to pro-
coed along the lines suggested it is
the right Of congress and the peo-
pie to 90 ahead. But there should be
q clear understanding Of the whole
problem involved. False pretense.
choud he definitely barred and all
81 tne pertinent facts made public.
That the farm board asked fol
additional appropriations to restore
sufficient funds, "in addition to the
present value Of moneys already on
loans to cooperatives." to properly II.
nance further dsvelspment Of the CO.
operative movement. and the furthes
fact that It asked authorization e
''comproinise claims against debto1
associations" may have some signi.
9icance.
The government cannot expect to
permanently finance such organiza-
Lions. It would do much better il il
al