Evening star., 1936-03-31
.S1,566,O)O bonus"
OF A.A.A. CHARGED
Senate Hears vandenDerg
Charge Two Got Sum
as Sugar Benefit.
BACKGROUND

oAI n 0uSCND-
The A.. A. A., bolstered by the
Jones' Costigan act, tipo years ago
indugurnted tdr-reachinp system OF
sugar control in continental and
insular United States. Domestic
beet output ,Uas sharply curtailed
and colonial cane sugar ipds sub
jected to strict quota system. To
wds mandatory, benefit payments
iDere made, but from the institu-
ton OF the laio beet rdisers Digor.
ously protested insular grotDers
,oere giuen the better OF the bargain
by quotas dllegedly larger than
deserved.
The Senate was intrigued today by
the charge Of Senator Vandenberg,
Republican, whose Michigan con-
stituency includes the second largest
sugar-beet growing population in the
country, that the A. A. A. had made
benefit payments amounting to ST.
566.550 to two unnamed producers of
Puerto Rican cane. There was no in
dication, however. that Senator VAN
denberg would disclose the identity
Of these millionaire beneficiaries Of
the New Deal sugar policy.
Vandenberg yesterday called instead
on Secretary Wallace to furnish this
information as well as the names Of
all individual growers, no matter what
their crop, who received benefit pay
ments totaling $1,000 or more. The
Senator, who complained from the
Senate floor that payments to domestic
sugar raisers were being sharply cur
tailed" has introduced a resolution
making these disclosures mandatory.
He cited press reports quoting Sec
retary Wallace as declining to give
the information on the ground it
might be misused by Commercial
people and political people"
Might Be Dangerous Politically.
'If by the latter reference he means
it would be politically dangerous to
let the information out, he may be
right" Vandenberg said, and then
asked these questions:
40 IL 1IOt ID uC GkldG d kIcdL INGW
York bank collected $750,4s6 as its
residuary share Of A. A. A. benefits
to one Puerto Rican sugar operation
in one year?
Then there is an exceedingly in
teresting corollary question: Is it or
it is not true that a Puerto Rican
sugar company received 1851 ,064 as
compensation for restricting crops:
and that this company concurrently
increased its capital stock by a split
up Of shares, increased its stock from
10000 shares selling in the neighbor-
hood of S160 per share or q market
value of s1l 200. 900. to Toe, 900 shares
selling this week in the neighborhood
OF $40 per share or . market value
of s2S,00O,000?
II do not assert the fact, I ask the
question with considerable assurance
that it Is the fact"
Seeks True Facts"
1T would seem to me to be far more
dangerous" he said, TO leave public
opinion at the mercy of countless
stories regarding extravagant farm
benefit payments which have run up
and down the land for two years than
to bring the true facts out into the
open"
Reverting to the sugar question, he
said:
Benefit payments to domestic SUI
gar-beet farmers are being sharply
curtailed today-cut back to q basis
which violates the moral obligation
involved in a benefit payment plan
which was specifically substituted for
a reduction in the sugar tariff. These
farmers now have neither the tariff
nor the full payments intended to be
substituted therefor"
Vandenberg said the little farmer"
has nothing to fear from disclosure
of the payments, adding that my mail
during the last week strongly suggests
that the little farmer would immense
ly like to know the full facts"
mo individual who draws subsidies