Henderson daily dispatch. (Henderson, N.C.) 1914-1995, 1936-03-21
OTHERS VIEWS
SAYS CONTACT HAS FLAWS.


of agriculture has prepared ana suo-
mitted to the Senate and House COM
mittees on agriculture bill providing
| for the state compact system Oh ~
| baccO production control. Broadly
| speaking, the bill authorizes the en-
! trance into compacts by the various
tobacco production states by wn>cn
| the production and sale of tobacco is
to be ontrolled, the administrator Oh
| the laws enacted under the various
compacts by state commissions anu
the advance to these commissions OF
the sum of 100000 by the Congress
| for the administration and ENFORCE
ment of the said control laws. Inc
| other aspects of the bill are mercy
collateral to and in aid OF the ABOVE
three main features.
Now, I have no disposition to say
that the state compact system or
| production control as set up by the
| Federal department of agriculture
| will not work or that the detectives
| of production control and fair prices
J cannot be attained hereunder. But
| do most emphatically assert that the
way of the subject has been handled
| is going to make attainment of such
results an unnecessarily difficult one.
| The ease with which the plans and
purposes of the old AAA was attain
| ed was attributable to unity of con-
| troll and Capitalization of power, and
| it is passing strange that the depart
| ment would have departed from such
| a unified and cohesive principle when
it came to the state compact method
| of production control. But it has done
so mad without any necessity there
| for. The model bill that it prepared
| to be adopted by the various states is
| lust as loose and disconnected as 1t
| was possible to make it. Instead or
providing for commission with pow
er and authority coterminous with the
| producing area, the bill provides for
some six or eight state commissions,
depending upon the number of states
| comprising the; producing area, with
| nothing more than an unenfOrcible
understanding that these commissions
| will cooperate and agree upon pro-
| duction quota for each state based
upon the production records over a
| given period in relation to the domes-
! tic and foreign market needs. This, OF
| course. is practically a degradation
| of the whole state compact concept
| and well nigh invites failure and a
| discrediting of the system at the out
| set for what the grower wants most
| of all is assurance that the control
will be equally vigorous and impartial
throughout the producing area. This
he can't have under the disconnected
and divided system of six or eight
state commissions whose jurisdiction
rcfo To %
| boundaries of the state whose COM
mission it is. hate to think that such
| a system was set up to fail; but, in
view of the insistance with which
unified and cohesive control was urg-
ed under a commission whose author
ity and power was coextensive with
| the producing area and the equal re-
J sistance with which such plan was
| rejected, there is basis for the sus-
| picion that it is with Indifference as
to success or failure that the system
of state compact production control is
set up in the first instance.
Another anomaly in the bill is the
| provision for $500000 to be taken from
the Federal treasury to enforce
state law, or laws Of a group of states.
It may be proper and legitimate, but
I am anticipating considerable trou-
BILE in inducing the Congress to sub
iect the treasury to any such extran-
eous burdens. If the enforcement of
| a state tobacco production control
| law may be financed by the Federal
treasury the New York milk control
| law may be similarly enforced at the
| Federal treasuryS expense, and so on
! throughout the entire field of state
law enforcement.
Had a proper commission been set
up for the producing area, this COM
mission could have acquired all the
| funds necessary to the enforcement.
The administration of tobacco prOduc-
ton control under the Kerr-Smith
Act was very profitable indeed and it
! might have been made so under e.
| unified and cohesive control system
| under state compacts. But the system
set up under the model bill drafted by
the Federal department of agriculture
and enacted by the Virginia legisla-
ture has neither power no credit It's
principal significance is the germs Of
failure written into the system at the
outset.
This state compact system, if SYM
many of our constitutional difficult
ties The Guffey coal production con-
troll act has just been challenged in
the United States Supreme Court.
Very few lawyers anticipate a govern
mental victory in that action. 1 have
long thought that the state compact
method of production control might
be successfully applied in this field.
Certainly, there would be no such
thing as outside production, as may
be in the case of tobacco, when the
coal producing area is once covered
by the compacts. In short, coal pro-
duction just lends itself to this meth
cd of production control. However,
this, as in the case of tobacco pro
| duction control, must be conceived
/ and worked out by those in sympathy
with the system; otherwise, 1t may
| he loaded to death with needless oe-
tails or its power dissipated oy oil
vision and disunion.
JOHN w. HESTER.
| Washington, March II, 1886.