Evening star., 1936-03-25
INCOME PUBLICITY
PARADOX IS SEEN
New Dealers Find Davis
Protecting Data on
Farmer Benefits.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

Chester DAVIS, neaQ OF the ASI1Cn.
tural Adjustment Administration and
one of the key men in the New Deal
may find himself persona non grata
with certain other oficials Of the
Roosevelt regime and various members
of Congress who believe in pitiless as
well as pitiful publicity. but he has
maintained. nevertheless, the courage
Of his convictions.
Davis insists there Is such q thing
as confidential treatment Of the pri-
vate affairs of a citizen, even II 1t
does involve the payment by the Gov
ernment to the citizen Of certain
benefit checks or subsidies.
Over in the Securities and Exchange
Commission they have adopted just
the opposite view. They feel that
everything a corporation pays out in
the way of salaries should be made
public. In the House Ways and Means
Committee, also, they hold that all
salaries in excess of $4,000 a year
should be held up to public view.
Publicity Move On.
Davis happens to take the other
view because a movement in the House
OF Representatives led by Taber OF
New York and now a resolution in
The Senate introduced by Arthur Van
denburg of Michigan would require
the publication Of the names and ad-
dresses of all persons who receive in
excess of $4,000 a year from the Gov
ernment for A. A. A. benefits.
The Michigan Senator says he
knows of one corn-hog contract
where the beneficiary was paid $2l9,-
s25 in two years for not raising 1887
hogs" He speaks Of another example
of q cotton contract in which $l68,00O
was paid out "for not planting 1000
acres"
But Davis, in a letter to Chair
man Jones OF the House Agriculture
Committee, says all this is confidential
information and should be so treated
He writes:
1.-THE Adjustment Administration
has attempted to protect the interests
of individual contract signers by with
holding public announcements on in
dividual contract figures. These con-
tracts were an agreement between the
Secretary of Agriculture and the in
dividual contract signers. It has been
held that the individual producer was
entitled to confidential treatment Of
the contract information.
Fears Exploiting.
1T Is apparent that unethical use
might be made Of this contract in.
formation if it were made public and
fell into the hands Of those who might
wish to exploit the contract signers
commercially or otherwise"
What Davis says is right. The
farmers would be pestered'by all sorts
Of high-pressure selling, they would be
annoyed by city folks trying to sell
them stock and what not. and they
would find perhaps unwarranted jeal-
ousies created and unfair charges OF
favoritism here and there in measuring
allowances.
But precisely these arguments were
presented without avail to the S. e. G..
Many large businesses offered to tell
what salaries were paid the groups Of
executives or to reveal how many SAL
aries Of given amount were paid 50
long as it would be possible to with
hold the names of the recipients. The
contention was that rival organizations
could then make higher offers for
valuable men and that internal
jealousies would be created which
would cause damage to the companies.
The s. E C. was adamant against
such pleas though in two instances
the Federal courts have issued re-
straining orders against publication o.
certain data relating to the finances
of companies whose securities are
listed in the public exchanges.
Same Principle.
AS for the action Of the House Ways
and Means Committee in making pub
Lie d list Of salaries paid when the
data were taken from the income tax
returns, the argument made by DAVIS
about unethical use was interposed
then, too, but without avail Unethical
use has already been made Of the
salary list. In this case, too, the in
formation relates solely to corporation
funds paid to Its own executives or to
those who performed services. Sena-
tor Vandenberg is, On the other hand,
asking for facts about money paid out
Of the public treasury in the form Of
benefits to farmers. The one case
involves private funds and the other
relates to public funds.
In both instances the same principle
could be applied. Those who favor
revealing to the eyes of snoopers, ex-
tortiorists and others all sorts Of pri-
vate data are on one side and those
who believe that a citizens own affairs
are still private are on the other.
From the standpoint of the latter it
might be better If the Vandenberg
resolution did pass, so that the
farmers might have taste of what
happens when pitiless publicity Is
administered to their brethren In in
dustry and business.