The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-08-29
Liberal Viewpoint
BY DIR. HARRY ELMER BARNES


new AAA amendment raises an interesting
question as to the motives behind it. Was it
introduced by conservatives who wished to make
the whole AAA appear absurd? Or was 1t pushed
by special interests from the potato states who
wished to feather their own nests? The fact that
among it's leading sponsors were Senator Borah
and Senator Vandenberg, both representa- tives
of leading potato states and prominent among
Republican candidates for the Presidential nom
nation in 1895, make it plausible to suppose
that the two motives may have played their
part.
This amendment establishes a most rigorous
form of potato control" The Secretary OF
Agriculture has the right to prescribe quota
for each potato-raising farmer. If the farmer
raises more than this quota, he becomes subject
to a tax or fine Of As cents on each buShel
Further, ali potatoes offered for sale must be
packed in containers prescribed by the govern
ment and each cOntainer must bear govern
ment stamp.
The penalties imposed for bootlegging pota-
toes are even more inclusive than those which
existed with respect to the bootlegging of liquor
Under the potato bill the buyer of bootleg"
potatoes would be equally punishable with the
vender thereof.
TINE proposed law reads as follows: "Any
Il person who knowingly sells or offers for
sale, or knowingly offers to buy, or buys, po-
tatoes not packaged as required by this title
or any person who knowingly sells or offers for
SALE or who knowingly offers to buy, or buys,
potatoes, to the package of which are not al
fixed E. stamps, shall upon conviction thereof
be fined not more than $1,000 Any person con-
vcted of a second offense may, in addition to
such fine, be imprisoned for not more than one
year"
No informed and unprecedented person would
be likely to deny that the American farmer, in
Guiding the potato farmer, needs aid in bet
tering his lot. Any effective program undoubted-
ly involves general governmental regulation and
control. Anarchy and cut-throat competition
have ruined American farming as much as they
have American industry But it is doubtful if
legislation of such stringency provides the prop
er remedy.
This potato act would be absurd unless its
operation were limited to the big growers of
potatoes. 1t would involve endless red tape and
suicidal expense to apply it to the many millions
who raise potatoes not only on great farms, but
in small gardens from which they sell a few
bushels of excess product. But it would be hard
to differentiate so clearly in law and practice
between the big and little producers of potatoes.
Large growers might split up their farms in
order to eVade control
1t requires no great wisdom or foresight to
enable one to predict that any such legislation
would be vastly unpopular and extremely diff
fcult to enforce. Potato growers would resent
crop limitation unless paid a bounty. And it
would be difficult to collect processing tax on
potatoes which require no important transforma-
ton between the farm and the kettle. 1t would
be well nigh impossible either to prescribe a
quota for the producer of a few bushels of po-
tatoes or to prevent him from yielding to the
temptation to market few bushels now and
then without government stamp. Bureaucratic
prosecutions would be inevitable and bitterly re-
sented.
DUT there are broader and more fundamental
- objections to such legislation than the diff
hcuitieS and expense Of enforcement or the I'M
popularity associated Herewith. Such law
would mean higher prices for and diminished
consumption of what is probably next to wheat,
the most important single staple product in the
diet of the American people. 1t would make
their diet all the more inadequate and the
plight Of the masses even more deplorable
The whole scheme is simply an extreme form
Of the scarcity philosophy which has damned
the whole AAA from the beginning in the eyes
Of up-to-Gate economists. What we want is
more potatoes and more money available among
the masses Of the people with which to buy
them. If we had fair, decent and adequate wages
and equitable salaries there could be both more
potatoes produced and more purchased at prices
which would bring reasonable return to the
farmer.
Mark Sullivan is usually an alarm monger
for the plutOcratS. But this potato bill gave him
a real handle to grab on to. His criticism of
this legislation was both incisive and logical.
Nevertheless, he should, in fairness, be reminded
that the groups and classes in American society
for whom he is a leading and authorized spokes-
man are the very ones who have brought about
conditions which provide the background and
motive for just this sort Of legislation. They
have taken the lead in running the American
farmer. 1t is they who prevent the American
workers and white collared group from receiving
the wages and salaries which might remove for
ever the blight of the scarcity philosophy. So,
once again, Mr.. Sullivan speaks with something
less than complete propriety.