Evening star., 1936-02-11
MURPHY DEFENDS
NEW FARM BILL
Speaker, in Forum, Says
Trial Is Better Than Do
Nothing Policy.

Murphy of Iowa. speaking over the
National Radio Forum last night, de-
clared it is better to proceed with
the pending soil conservation bill than
to do nothing at all. The address,
arranged by The Star, was broadcart
over a coast-to-coast network OF the
, National Broadcasting Co.
Better trial with the danger OF
error than no trial at all" he SAID.
The Senator cited the contending
viewpoints over the constitutionality
Of the measure. Senator McNary,
minority leader of the Senate, he ex-
planned, holds that the two-year plan
during which the farmer is paid to
retire land from cultivation Is un-
constitutional
Few, If any, foresaw that the Su-
preme Court would hold the A. A. A.
unconstitutional for the reason it did,
Senator Murphy said, and he cited
the Republican platform of 1882
which he said had an obvious" SINH
larity to the A. A. A.
Asserting that the problem is what
to do now for agriculture, the Senator
said that regardless of the fact that
the A. A. A. was declared unconsti-
tutional, it served to help the farmer
in his distress.
The full text of Senator Murphy:
address follows:
The decision of the Supreme Court
OF the United States in the Hoosac
Mills case nullified the agricultural
adjustment act in respect to crop reg
ulation through contracts under which
q great majority of farmers producing
our major food and fabric crops op'
Grated during 1884 and 1885.
The agricultural adjustment act had
as its object the re-establishment OF
parity price for the products OF the
farm. Parity" in this usage is inter-
chanpeable with equitable" the
equitable price sought being one which
would enable the farmer to buy with
the proceeds of his crop as much as
he was able to buy during the pre-war
period, l9O9-l4. The difference be-
tween the current average price and
the fair exchange value was made ur
to him in benefit payments. Thus. II
hogs sold at 81 per hundredweight ano
the fair exchange value was deter
mined to be $925, the difference OF
$2.25 was given the farmer as acreage
rental for land retired from produc-
ton of corn and as compensation for
the reduced number of hogs bred. In
other words, the act sought to increase
the price of stopping surplus produc-
tion.
The money paid the farmer was
raised by processing taxes. The crops
affected were wheat, cotton, corn, to-
bacco. hogs, peanuts, sugar. rice and
rye. Hogs alone, of all meat products
and contrary to general opinion, bore
a processing tax. The pork chop was
taxed, but the beesteak was exempt
ed-not a just arrangement, but we
won't go into that.
Tax Power Not Restrained.
In nullifying the law, the court
held that the regulation of agricul-
tural production was not power dele
gated by the States to Federal Gov
ernment, and was therefore unconsti-
tutional. The court, as read the de-
cision. did not say that Congress is
without power to levy a processing
tax; nor did it say that Congress may
not serve the general welfare by legis-
lation seeking to effect fair price for
farm commodities as between pro-
ducer and consumer.
It was foreseen by few. If any, per-
sons that the agricultural adjustment
act would be held unconstitutional for
the reason stated by the court. Ger
tainly it was not foreseen by the Re-
publicans in national convention in
1892, for their party platform Of that
year declared: The fundamental
problem of American agriculture Is
the control of production to such vol
unne as will balance supply with de-
mand. In the solution of this problem
the cooperative organization Of farm
ers to plan production, and the tariff
to hold the home market for American
farmers, are vital elements. A third
element equally as vital is the control
OF the acreage of land under cultiva-
ton as an aid to the efforts of the
farmer to balance production"
The similarity between that platform
plank and A. A. A. is obvious. But the
A. A. A. as related to the 3,500,000
contract signers is dead, and we are
concerned now with meeting the situ-
alton resulting from its notification.
It is fairly to be said that it served to
enable the distraught and helpless
farmer to lift from his back some OF
the crushing weight of debt, and to
feel anew at least some of the pulsa-
tions of economic freedom. 1t served,
further, to lay the basis for national
recovery in its contribution to the
restoration of the farmers purchasing
power Any future historical account
ing of the strides taken by the United
States in bringing about the return of
q stable prosperity which fails to list
the benefit payments of the A. A. A.
among the major causes of our ma
tional comeback will be as history of
the War of the Revolution without
George Washington. The results of its
UpcIdUAOu ouPPAACo PhooA oAiC", ~ PiOoA
were needed, that agricultural pros
perity is the basis of national pros
perity, and that without the one there
cannot be the other.
~ Continues Payment.
It Is unthinkable that the agricul-
tural industry should be permitted to
drift back into the helpless condition
in which it found itself in the years
from 1920 to 1888. And because 1t is
unthinkable that all or part OF our peo-
pie should return to incomes OF the
depression period, the administration
proposes the farm bill now under con-
sideration in the Senate. Briefly. the
bill proposes a continuance Of bene-
at payments to farmers for their CO.
operation in soil conservation and the
prevention Of soil erosion. For q period
Of two years. or until January !, 1898,
these payments will be made to the
farmer by the Secretary Of Agriculture,
not in fulfllment of written contract,