The Hardin tribune-herald. [volume] (Hardin, Mont.) 1925-1973, 1935-08-23
Farm Officials Give Facts
Concerning Processing Tax

ment.
'.You say you are protecting
yourself against suits for the re-
covery Of taxes paid If the SUI
preme court should declare the
adjustment act unconstitutional.
Who would bring the suits and
why would they bring them
against you? The government
collected the tax and paid the
money back to the farmers. The
consumer Is the only one who
could have legitimate right to
sue. Why would he sue you when
you have simply served as an
agency through which the govern
ment collected the tax? It seems
that the one sure way to bring
suits against yourself Is through
the steps you are now taking. If
you should win your case il
would seem certain that those who
have already paid you will sue
70 recover, or do you plan to dis
tribute what you may collect from
the government to the consumers
Of your product? II you are not
planning such distribution In
case you win, we believe you may
well be prepared for actions
against your company. Certainly
we shall encourage all farmers
who have bought your products
containing taxed wheat and on
which you have Increased prices
because Of the tax, to bring suit
to recover from you should you
be. successful in your court action.
With regard to your suit. may
we call your attention to some-
thing which undoubtedly you al
ready know? In a statement
dated June 50, 1885, seth Thomas.
solicitor OF the y. 8. department
OF agriculture said: The supreme
court has nlanv times said that
the mere bringing of a suit Gre
ates no rights. The fact Is then
that. whether 4 the pr opo S e d
amendments pass or not. the per-
sons who have filed suits for the
refund Of processing taxes are in
no better position than the per-
sons who have not filed such
suits. In the face of this, what
becomes Of your claim that your
suit was filed in self-protection?
In your fight to prevent the
farmer to reach some kind OF
economic equality with other
groups you can hardly expect the
farmer to: sit idly by. Perhaps
you and other professors viii
realize some dav that your busl-
ness depends upon the producer
who furnishes you with raw ma
5terials. =
I'VE have heard much from
You professors about the con-
sumer since the adjustment pro-
grams started. Suddenly you
have manifested a great interest
in the prices the consumer has to
nay, incidentally pointing out, on
the hope that you may arouse the
consumer, that processing taxes
are to blame for high costs. Did
Won ever explain to the consumer,
that the processing tax of 30
cents q bushel adds only one-half
cent to the cost of pound loaf
OF bread and only two to five
cents on a shirt. depending on
how much cotton there Is in It?
Do you explain that II bread has
gone 4 up more than one-half
cent, the rest Of the increase is
due to other causes? Do you ex-
plain that the adjustment pro-
gram protects the consumer by
limiting adjustment payments and
In turn the processing tax to an
amount necessary to restore wheat
to the purchasing power level OF
1909-1913? Did you ever hear OF
any such consumer protection be-
ing provided in any Of the laws
bY which non-farming interests
receive special governmental aid?
u "n you are 50 interested in the
consumer. why not call his att
tention to the greatly increased
prices he must pay because or
the tariff? The processing tax
after all operates the same as a
tariff and like the tariff IS paid
for by the consumer OF the prod
uct. or article concerned.
u ssAnd with regard to the tariff;
YOU know that wheat has LONG
had a tariff Of - cents bushel.
It might just as well have been
.a dollar. q bushel as far as any
good 1t did the farmer as long
as we had wheat to- sell on the
world market. It has helped a
little In the case Of high protein.
wheat fof the northwest spring
wheat area, but that was all. You
did not object to giving the wheat
farmer a ~ cent tariff which
would not work, but you rise In
righteous indignation over a 30
cent processing tax which win
work. sr .St i