The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1933-10-31

dence that the new monetary policy
was adopted when the agitation of
certain groups of farmers had be-
come acute.
This coincidence is precipitating
the question as to whether the vast
power over money is to be ad-
ministered in response to the needs
of particular groups of producers or
by disinterested judgment as to the
complex needs of the nation as a
whole.
The question has been pushed
forward, owing to the fact that in
his radio address the President ap-
peared to be telling the farmers,
not merely that he would raise the
prices of their particular products,
but that he could raise them by
regulating the value of the dollar
OF all the people. He did not say
that definitely But he did not put
away definitely the popular infer
ence in the farming areas that the
value of the dollar could and should
be determined by the needs of GER
tain producers.
Let us be clear about this. The
raising of the price level represent
ing the weighted average of the
whole mass of commodities is a
possible, desirable, and a national
use of the power over money. The
raising of the price of half a dozen
commodities by manipula ting the
national dollar would be an unwar-
ranted use of the power over money.
The administration would not
only be entitled to, but as a matter
of policy it ought to, take specific
action to enhance the value of the
farmers products. But it never
would be justified in determining
the value of the dollar to meet the
particular need of the cotton and
grain producers. The determination
of the value of the dollar is a ma
tional trust.
1T can be administered properly
= only if-in fact and in appear
ance-the criterion is as fair a bal
ance and compromise among all in
terestS as independent human judg-
ment can arrive at.
Once let the conviction crystalline
in mems minds that the powers
concentrated in the President are
not being used in a widely national
spirit, the political truce will COL
lapse. Men will say that if these
powers are allowed to respond to
the agitation of one group of pro-
ducers, then every one else must
organize and agitate to defend or
promote his own interest. This
would be a truly deplorable pros
pect. The country should not be
subjected to such confusion and
conflict.
1nere Is, however, only one way
to avoid it. That is by making it
perfectly clear to the whole people,
through words and through deeds,
that the administration fully real
ICES that the country has accepted
the concentration of power in the
executive and has put complete
trust in the Presidents leadership
on the understanding that he would,
allow no pressure of particular in
terest to distort his Judgment of the
national interest as a whole.
l do not mean to say or to imply
that there has as yet been any such
distortion. On the contrary, I be-
lieve that, while there have been
mistakes, there has been not only
perfect good faith in the exercise of
power, but persistence in seeking to
balance the various interests of the
people
But the coincidence between the
announcement Of new monetary
policy and the agitation in the corn
belt is danger signal that can not
be disregaried.
Copyright 1881