Milford chronicle., 1936-03-06
new FARM Bill
EPRONOUNCED
SHAM And FRAUD
Gco1fiAHed from First Psgel

Dill which was declared unconstitu-
tional there was a yardstick by
which the benefits to be paid TO far
mers could be adjudged correctly.
That yardstick was the difference
between the current average farm
price and the fair exchange value.
We knew what the farmers bene-
fits were to be.
Have we yardstick in the pend
ing bill? No. Three plans are set
forth without any measurement of
the amount Of money that may be
paid to the farmers by the Secre-
tary of Agriculture on their crops
or on the land retired and placed in !
legumes OF nitTogenous crops in or
der to prevent the ground from
yielding to erosion.
There is no restriction placed |
upon the Secretary Of Agriculture 4
as to the extent of the benefits |
which may be paid or as to the
source from which they are TO come.
There might be three sources
from which, under the pending bill,
money could be paid to the farmers.
One source was a national sales tax
the second was the denounced
processing tax; and the third was a
draft upon the Treasury Of the Uni
ted States. This bill does not con-
tain a sentence that states from
what source the money is to be paid.
In my experience as a legislator in
this body, / do not recall any bill,
an authorization bill or apprOpria-
tion bill, that did not provide the
means or the manner Of paying the 4
benefits or rewards or the grants or I
whatever they may be called. Does
anyone know where this money
shall come from?
"Are we TO take the money out of
the Treasury Of the United States?
Are we to 1y in the face Of the Su- '
preme Court and attempt again to 4
levy processing taxes in order to
pay farmers for planting some of
their acreage which they retire from
the production of money crops in
plants which go to promote the fer
tility and conservation Of the soil?
Are we TO place a general sales II
tax upon the backs Of the people of 4
this country and pay the benefits to I,
The farmers from that souree2 Why 4
iOes not this bill say frankly where a
he money Is TO come from? Shall 5
We vote for Il IN the blind and In II
he dark? Why does not the Seere- n
ary Of Agriculture or the Admins
ration Of the Senate Committee OF Al
he Congress specify in what man
Ter the benefits shall be paid? Jl
I'VE are proposing to do the very A
hing during this temporary period
hat we did under the Agricultural ~
Act. Under that act we n
DOk out what we're called excess =
creages in order to reduce prOduc- I
ION, which, In turn, elevated the
rice level Of farm products phil r,
sOphy with which / have no quar-
al and which / warmly favor. But
le Supreme Court came along and
aid we could not do that particular
ling. gr
Now, what are we doing? We are pl,
king out the same acreage and fol- a
wing the same principle with a Is
lade of a difference in practice. Cc
lstead Of having the land lie idle wi
e are saying to the farmer, Put IN
lis land in nitrOgenOus crops-clO- RI
IT, vetches, soybeans, or similar n
ops. for two purposes, one to pro- He
ct the land from soil erosion and ~,
e other to add fertility to the SOIL
''The Government then will come %,
Ong and pay $44O,0OO,000 and say ~
the farmer, This is your reward G.
r retiring this excess acreage, Iio
hich permits US to eurtail produe- o.
IN and therefore bring about a lar n,
r yield financially to the farmer. he,
is exactly the same thing with -
tie different dress, but one not AZ
ite as becoming as the old, in my oI,,
iniOn. 80
Il do not want to tell the farmers az =
the country that the language Of at
IS bill brings Il outside Of the pro- - ~.
,itory language of the Supreme 49, 49,
urt's decision. When the prOvis- ~, .n9
IS Of this proposal are applied un- y. ~
+ the most favorable terms under sne
which is undeniable. llls
adopts the same plan and brings ~
)ut the same result as the act pen !
ich was denounced by the Su- 2
me Court. Hence l cannot sup =
t a mere subteTfuge and arttfice. lna' @
II the AAA had not been declar- cOu
unconstitutional there would -,
-e been no effort made to increase b
appropriation for soil erosion in
agricultural bill Of this year. In
If it tells the story that we are
trying to conserve soil, but we IL
trying 70 avoid the decision Of Trus