Evening star., 1933-01-23

Agricultural States of the country
maintain tn position that prices must
be supported by national legislation.
and are prepared, according to some
comments, to undertake the expert
ment that Is involved in the amended
farm-aid measure. Under the allot-
ment or parity plan, as voted by the
House, it is seen that the broad pow
ers are conferred on the Secretary of
Agriculture. while the number of prod
ucts to be aided has increased. Critics
emphasize the bureaucratic require
ments. and fear that constitutional
questions may be involved.
Amendments should seek to restore
the measure to the principles and pro-
cedure first proposed by the plans
sponsors" advises the Chicago Daily
News, with the belief that "all attempts
at direct price fixing should be aban-
doned." That paper states specifically,
THE processing tax should be limited
to export surplus crops. whose prices
are determined by world conditions,
and the amount of the tax should
correspond to the ineffective tariff duty
which now prevails. Insistence on the
levy as tariff offset would automati-
cally exclude dairy products, peanuts
and other commodities that are pro-
therefore are protected by the tariff.
Those changes would leave wheat, corn
In the form of hogs, cotton, tobacco and
rice as the bills beneficiaries. They
would make 1t unnecessary to invest the
Secretary of Agriculture with the broad
powers now proposed" The Daily News
holds that with changes the bill might
regain some Of the lost commendation
which greeted the original program"
Fundamentally" says the Mobile
Register, there is no great difference in
principle between this farm relief tax
measure and the tariff, which has been
levied for the benefit Of American in
dustries. However, there Is strong op-
position to the use of the taxing power
Of the Government for these purposes,
and this farm relief measure will meet
some Of it." The FL Paso Times feels
that 1T would be hardship, tempo
rarily, on consumers. but there has to
be q start somewhere to elevate prices
and give 100000 people dependent
start q wave Of recovery all along the
line" The Sioux Falls Daily Argus
Leader, noting suggestions that the
measure provides sales tax, replies:
Though this paper is disturbed over
the complexities of the new farm bill,
1t surely cannot subscribe to the notion
that the farmers are not entitled to
assess q sales tax II they SO desire. Call
1t sales tax If you wish. But when
you do SO. call the tariff sales tax
at the same time. The tariff is, in
reality, a gigantic sales tax. If the
farm parity bill Is bad because 1t Is a
sales tax, 50 is the tariff. And if the
farm bill Is to be discredited because
Of this, the entire tariff wall should be
torn down along with it,
There are many opponents Of this
measure" comedies the Oklahoma City
Timey, "who honestly feel that it will
make bad matters worse. There are
proponents who are convinced that
some such subsidy Is essential to avoid
wrecking q most essential industry, and
disrupting the whole rural social struc-
ture. The emergency confronting the
farmers is the best Justification Of its
enactment and the element OF doubt
will remain until 1t Is tested, II it is
enacted" The Houston Chronicle, IN
sisting on m increase in the price Of
the things the farmer Sells" adds: '"The
allotment plan, admittedly, is an eco
nomic experiment, and q daring one,
but the time has come to welcome ex-
periments, not to fear them"
Assuming hat "the allotment scheme
y built on the proposition that the