Evening star., 1935-04-14
A.A.A. WHEATP[AN'
SPIKED BY RUL|NG'
McCarI Bars Payment of
Benefits if Contract
Area Is Exceeded.
fContinued From First Page.)

payments no effective artificial stim-
mand could easily be produced under
the present A. A. A. set-up.
The ruling is applicable to A. A. A.
action on other crops Thus far,
however, no other crops on which
benefits are paid have been placed
on an unrestricted basis, although
there has been pressure to release corn
from the efforts at acreage reduction.
The McCarl ruling places the A. A.
A. in the worst predicament of its
stormy career.
If it goes through with its wheat
crop control contracts. reversing the
Wallace order and ruling that acreage
must actually be reduced it might be
subjected to the charge Of inviting a
bread shortage. If it stands by the
Wallace order, it will run head on
into the power of the controller.
Apparently the only way out Of the
dilemma is legislation giving the
Agriculture Department retroactive
authority to do what it already has
done. The House Agriculture Com
mittee already has reported bill
which would authorize the A. A. A.
to pay bounties for increased as we'll
as decreased production.
The situation is expected. in any
event. to bring to a boil the long
simmering hostility between Mr.. Nc
Carl, a Republican appointee OF
President Harding, and the New Deal
ers On several occasions the con-
troller has hamstrung the admlnistra-
ton. notably in cutting down its al
location for the proposed tree belt to
reduce the danger of dust storms and
floods in the Middle West
At the time of the controversy over
this project administration leaders
considered Mr.. McCarl'S presence in
the Government so dangerous to the
New Deal program that Attorney Gen
eral Cummings was ordered to LOOK
into the possibility of removing the
controller.
He is understood to have reported
that Mr. McCarl, like any other pTssl-
dental appointee, could be ousted at
the pleasure of the President, even
though the law creating the office
stated specifically that the controller
should be appointed to l5-year term,
which could not be terminated within
the life of the encumbent except by
impeachment.
Opinion Based on Meyer Case.
Mr.. Cummings opinion was based
on a ruling of the Supreme Court in
1925 IN the famous Meyer case. The
plaintiff, a California postmaster, re-
moved by President Coolidge, chal-
lenged the right of the executive to
fire him without cause. The court
ruled that the President was within
his rights under article of the Con-
stitution.
This constitutional guarantee OF the
Presidents right to remove any ap-
pointee, Mr. Cummings held, would
supersede the law under which the
controllers office was created.
Mr.. McCarl's term, if allowed to
run its full course, would not expire
until 1886. Proposals to seek his re-
moval recently have been revived by
fears that he would surround the
s4,000,000 900 work-relief appropria-
ton with so much red tape that Its
effectiveness as a pump printing fund
would be destroyed.
The McCarl ruling against Secre-
tary Wallaces method of meeting the
emergency created by the continued
seriousness of the drought and DUST
storms which have all but destroyed
the prospects for wheat crop in Kan
sas and parts of other States will Gre
ate an even more crucial issue.
Bread is a fundamental food" Sec
retary Wallace said in explanation OF
his decision to permit unlimited plant
ing, I'VE are taking steps against
the possibility of another drought. and
we believe that we owe duty to the
producer and consumer; on the other
hand we must protect the producer
against the effects of pillng up
surplus"
To safeguard against another sur
plus such as that which pulled down
wheat prices before the A. A. A. pro-
gram went into effect Secretary Wal
lace specified that farmers allowed to
ignore their acreage-control contracts
this year would have to agree to limit
their crops in 1886, if production con-
troll became necessary by that time.
Through continuance of adjust
ment payments" he explained. the
crop income insurance feature of the
program, which proved Of high value
in the 1881 drought, is maintained.
"Co-operating producers thus have
assurance Of some income through the
adjustment payments made upon their
domestic allotments, which are based
on past average production and are
not affected by the current crop.
Average Payment S176.
"These payments averaged Sl76 per
year per farm for the $4,000 wheat
adjustments contracts for the first
two years of the program. The aver
age payment per farm was consider
ably higher in the principal wheat
States, where production per farm is
higher than the national average"
Agriculture Department experts
estimated last month that if no
changes were made in the wheat pro-
gram the carry over on July l, 1886,
would be 50000,000 to 85,000,000
bushels, depending on the extent of
the drought. Since then the drought
situation has become worse rather
than better.
BY lifting restrictions on planting,
experts figured that the July carry
over would range between 60,000,000
and 2lO,OO0O00 bushels. Secretary
Wallace said 200,0O0,0O0 carry-over
in view of restricted export outlets,
would be sufficient to maintain
margin of safety.
Before abrogating the crop reduc-
ton sections of wheat contracts, Sec
retary Wallace received an opinion
from Agriculture Department lawyers
that such move would be legal un-
Ger existing law.