The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1936-01-17
STATES RIGHTS FARMING


minority Justices dissent to the AAA decision
The majority's ruling, we read it, is more
definition of agriculture than an Interpretation of
the Constitution. 1t first declares that the growing
OF crops is a local enterprise From that premise
1t advances to the assertion that the welfare of apr
culture, therefore, is matter of concern of tho
various localities and states where the crops are
grown. Thence to the conclusion that what is
matter OF local welfare is not matter of national
"el1are and since the Constitution gives to Congress
jurisdiction only over matters relating to national
welfare, Congress therefore has no Jurisdiction over
agriculture
1t is true that when the Constitution was drafted
century and half ago. agriculture was primarily
local operation. The Founding Father sat down
to meal which included Bread baked in his own
ovens, out OF flour ground in the water mill down
the creek, out of wheat grown on his own farm:
meat cured in his own smokehouse, butchered from
his own herds which had been fattened on his own
gra1n wine from his own cellar, crushed out of
grapes from his own vineyard
But Mr.. Justice Roberts and his colleagues of the
Supreme Court majority sit down in Washington,
D. O., to breakfast of orange juice crushed from
Florida oranges; bacon from an Iowa hog cured in
Chicago packing house, toast from bread made of
Dakota wheat which had been stored in Duluth
eggs
fresh from Maryland farm. Less fortunate Wash
ingtonians breakfast on cold storage eggs shipped
across the continent.
Yes agriculture was primarily local industry
in 1877, when the bulk of farmers commerce was
made up of such transactions as swapping with the
village shoemaker, side of ribs for pair of Shoes
But even then the welfare of agriculture was matter
of vital national concern, for the young republic
built its wealth on the exports of farm products
to Europe.
IN 1882 there revival of the local swapping
type of agricultural commerce, when neither viii
layers nor farmers could get money for the products
of their labor and had to swap with each other to
keep alive, when wheat was burned in Kansas fur
naces because it was cheaper than coal. And in
1882, the breadnes and the bankruptcies of business
houses and the closing of factories and banks in the
cities attested to the fact that agrcutures welfare
rather lack of welfare, was matter of vital
tional concern. Ten-cent corn in Iowa and 25-cent
wheat in the DaRotas caused shrnkage in farm
purchasing power consequent shrnkage in city
pay rolls and changed Industrial profits to industrial
losses. Farm foreclosures and dwindling Of farm
values resulted in such shrnkage of the assets of
banks and insurance companies that the billions
which Mr.. Hoover's RIG pumped into those financial
institutions failed to prevent what finally happened
In 1888, the ROOSEVELT ADMINISTRATOR launcned a
farm recovery program, and for two and one-half
years agricultures welfare and the national welfare
steadily improved 1t is fortunate for the country
that the Supreme Court majority did not hand down
its definition of agriculture in 1892 or 1888. Or is
it? Maybe even disappointed judges in those dark
days might have recognized that something greater
than the power of county sheriff in Mississippi was
required to keep an insurance company in another
state hundreds of miles away from going to the wall