The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1934-03-02
tl|ollliioa9'9 f lS5jijqle( Z,
National Topics Interpreted "a fTYYTTTTfA
by William Bruckart knxn31N
by William Bruckart

-
Bruckart zsfTl1lIf
be produced each year. The legislation,
known as the Bankhead bill, is I'M
doubtedly the most important prop
osition yet devised for extending fed
eral power, because IL not only in
vades rights hitherto respected but II
provides the secretary of agriculture
with power to force cotton farmers to
obey his orders in limiting the cotton
production.
Succinctly, the Bankhead bill with
which congress is now wrestling would
limit the production of cotton In the
United States to nine million bales for
the crop year of 1934-35, and In order
to prevent the production of greater
amount there is a destructive sales
tax provided for application to the
surplus. The tax Is fixed at twelve
cents pound for the amount In ex-
cess of nine million bales, and that
figure. of course, is higher than the
value of the cotton itself. To enable
the secretary of agriculture to control
the production, each farmer who
planted cotton would have to obtain
| from the secretary what is described
as certificate of exemption for the
is to say, the farmer would be given
certificate exempting so many
pounds of cotton from the operation
of the sales tax, and 1t is presumed
that the certificates Of exemption will
be issued only for the required
amount.
From this brief outline, it must be
apparent that never before has there
been such a drastic proposal for con-
troll of individual businesses of men
in this country. 1t amounts to d.
rect management by the federal gov
eminent of the private operations of
a farmer, and there is no doubt in the
minds of those promoting the legisla-
tion that it will go beyond cotton and
include corn, or wheat or hogs. or
dairy products. At any rate, If con-
gress enacts this legislation, there is
more III prospect.
Under the present crop reduction
plans, the proposition is voluntary.
There is a contractual arrangement
into which the producer voluntarily
enters. But under the new proposal,
the limitation is placed directly in
the hands of the secretary of agri-
culture and he is given power at the
same time to see that his decisions
az to total production and restrictions
are obeyed.
favorable to the bill and some of them
against it, but none of them have made
clear to me what can be done in poor
crop years or in years when there is
a bumper crop. What l mean is this:
the total for the crop year of 1884
35 is fixed at nine million bales on
the acreage of normal" or average
year. But assume there is especially
favorable weather in the year and
the production is far above the aver
age, then will the farmer be penalized
by having to destroy that part Of his
crop In excess of the amount stated on
his certificate of exemption? Or what
benefits will he gain when nature has
smiled on his crop?
There is also the converse of the
proposition. Assume there Is another
drought of 1880 pro-
On the portions and the cot
iOtber Hord ton crop is virtually
destroyed. How is
the cotton producer going to be re-
warded for having reduced his acre
age, and where will the country get
its supplies of cotton? Obviously. a
short crop will enhance the price. Yet
with small acreage, will the farmer
get even a fair return from the high
er prices?
Secretary Wallace of the Depart
ment of Agriculture called attention
to another possible result of the bill.
He told a congressional committee
that he feared there would be reg
certificates develop from that feature
of the bill One can only guess where
that would lead.
Mr.. Wallace said that the value of
the exemption certificates obviously
would f1uctuate along with the rate of
the tax on the excess, and the higher
the rate of the tax the greater would
be the value of the exemption certi-
ficate.
I'm so far as the exemption certi-
| ficates are of high value" he said,
"there may be tendency to shift the
emphasis from cotton production to
an emphasis on procuring of exemp-
ton certificates. These certificates
themselves might become a COM
modify. This could mean that various
persons who in the past have engaged
In the production of cotton and would
be entitled to exemption certificates,
may prefer to remain out of cotton
production and to rely for part of
their income normally received from
cotton upon the sales values of their
exemption certificates"
The secretary likewise pointed to
another vital spot In the statement
that there was no due allowance made
for differences in soil conditions or
weather, between the north and south
lines of the cotton belt, and other
such purely local phases. This ques-
ton of governing the whole business
from offices in Washington and within
the limitations of legal language
strikes me as being about as difficult,
and also about as dangerous. as any
dream or theory yet advanced. But
| be that as it may, congress is giving