The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1932-09-15
Foreign Representatives
SMALL, SPENCER, BREWER
(Incorporated)
CHICAGO NEW YORK boston
Roosevelt and Farm Relief

Roosevelt and arm RelleI
Whatever effect Franklin D. Roo
sevelt's farm relief speech at Topeka
may have on voters in the eastern
part of our nation, it unquestionably
won him votes in the farming coun-
try.
His proposal to take the non-con-
flicting parts of the McNary- Haugen
bill. the export debenture plan and
the domestic allotment proposal and
weld them into a system which will
guarantee to farmers a protected
market, not only will win support
in the west but 1t should put an ef-
fective muzzle on some of the presi-
dents most powerful spokesman from
the agricultural states.
The McNary- Haugen bill, it will
be remembered, was agriculture's
own plan for farm relief. 1t is dis
tinctly a product of the farm mind
and farm reactions to the economic
problems affecting not only the farms
but the nation.
But this bill encountered the OPP
position of the industrial east. 1t
was termed radical by some and
unfair by others whose sole object
was to get the products Of the farm
at the cheapest possible price. 1t
was passed by congress after long
argument and vetoed by President
Coolidge at the behest of eastern in
terests.
For Candidate Roosevelt to indorse
it, if only in part, means much to
the west. 1t will be interesting to
see what the reaction OF those Re-
publican stalwarts who always have
clamored for it will be. They GER
tainly will have to predicate their
attacks on the Democratic nominee
on grounds other than his farm re-
lief policy.
If there ever was any doubt that
Roosevelt would carry North Dakota,
this speech probably will dissipate it,
for nearly everyone in this state, re-
CARELESS of politics. favors either the
McNary- Haugen plan. the export de-
benture or the domestic allotment.
President Hoover has indicated SYM
pathy with none of them.
On the other hand there is more
than possibility that Roosevelt may
lose some eastern support because of
his fortnight stand.
TO adopt any one Of the ideas sug-
gested-or combination of all three
will be to create a domestic mar
ket for farm products with prices
higher than those paid in the world
market. This, in turn, will mean
some increase in the cost of living, a
real issue in the cities.
In the urban centers, therefore,
Roosevelt will be on the unpopular
side. His only hope in this respect
probably is that the voters there will
realize that We are all in the same
boat, that farm prosperity means
prosperity for the cities also, and
that adoption OF the plan suggested
would mean building prosperity from
the bottom up. If the people OF the
cities have at last become conscious
that the farm problem is truly a ma
tional one, the Democratic candidate
may not lose as much support there
as ordinarily would be the case.
Contrasted with the Republican
plan of more tariffs to prohibit the
importation of products which we
already are selling on the world mar
ket at world prices because we have
a surplus at home, the Roosevelt
program for agriculture rises like a
lighthouse upon the sea of agricul-
tural troubles.
It took courage for him to ignore
the "high-cost-o living issue which
may be raised against him and hold
out to agriculture the helping hand
which 1t has needed-and merited-
all these years. 1
Lack Of that courage is what has
kept the past three administrations
from adopting agriculture's OWL
ideas. Lack Of that courage foistet
upon agriculture the farm board. ar
eastern industrialist's conception Of
farm relief. Lack Of that courage
has made the last three administra.
lions long on promises and short OF
performance.
The proposals to keep down thu
governmental cost Of whatever pro.
gram u adopted, to keep its manage
ment ct home where 1t belongs. and
to put effective curbs on over -produc'
ton are all sound and sensible.
Candidate Roosevelt does not. lik'
some Of his opponents, pretend Il