Evening star., 1937-10-24
TYPE OF CROP CONTROL
QUESTION FOR CONGRESS
Nation Has Had Both Kinds-COmpul.
sorry and Notwithstanding
New Deal.


some kind of hocus pocus. payments
per acre for raising clover are trans
lated into payments per bushel for
not raising potatoes. The real pur-
pose is to limit crops. The soil con-
serving is largely camouflage.
This indirect crop control achieved
by means of the soil conservation
law is all that A. A. A. has been
able to do since January. 1886, when
the Supreme Court held the old di-
rect control of crops to be uncon-
stitutional. The administration now
says that this indirect crop control
by means of the soil conservation
law is ineffective. so the administra-
ton wants a real, direct crop-control
law.
From Voluntary TO Compulsory.
If there is to be control of FARM
ing. it is practically certain to be
compulsory ultimately. 1t is most
doubtful whether any form of VOL
untary control can be effective over
a number of years. We may start
with voluntary control. but it will be-
come compulsory.
This was illustrated in the case Of
cotton. The control of cotton. when
it was begun in 1888, was voluntary.
The administration offered cash to
individual cotton raisers If the rails
ers would pillow under part Of their
cotton. or reduce the amount they
planted, or otherwise limit the acre
age. The cotton raiser could take
the cash and do what the adminis-
tration asked Or the cotton raiser
could decline the cash and plant as
many acres as he pleased. 1t was
wholly voluntary.
Since many of the cotton raisers
purpose was to raise the price of cot
ton, some of them decided not to
take the Governments money. but to
plant their usual acreage, or even
more Their expectation was that
large acreage at a higher price
would put more money in their
pockets than the amount the ad-
ministration offered them to reduce
their acreage. Consequently the re-
suit of the first year or two Of cot
ton control on q voluntary basis was
unsatisfactory.
Intricate Regulations.
BY the Spring Of 1885 it was de-
cided that cotton control must be
compulsory-that every raiser must
abide by quota laid down by A. A. A.
at Washington. and that if any raiser
grew more cotton than his quota he
would be penalized by tax on the
excess amounting to half the price
Of the cotton. This compulsory con-
troll was accompanied by intricate
regulations. licenses and the like, with
penalties for violation.
Yet another thing We know from
experience. Control of one crop leads
to control of another: control of the
second leads to control of the third.
and so on until every crop is regulated
and limited. The proof of this Is the
experience We have already had
Reduction of cotton planting caused
many acres to be idle. The owners of
these idle acres. looking about for
something to plant on them, decided
upon peanuts. Thereupon the number
of peanuts grown was so large as tn
glut the market At this point peanut
raisers came to Washington to ask
that this crop also be put under con-
| troll
Two Groups of Idle Acres.
With peanut control added. there
were now two groups of idle acres.
acres that had formerly been in cotton
and acres that had formerly been in
peanuts Owners of these acres, look
ing about for something to plant on
/ them. decided to plant potatoes. The
/ result was excessively large crops of
potatoes. AS Senator Bailey Of North
! Carolina put it at the time: Farmers
have continually been driven from cot
ton. tobacco and peanut production
and have gone into the production of
potatoes. We cannot afford to
| limit the number of farmers pro-
| ducing cotton, tobacco and peanuts
and drive them all over into the potato
field" Thereupon it was decided to put
potatoes under control-the law was
| passed in August. 1885.
At the time potatoes we're added to
the crops under control, transition was
made from the voluntary to the COM
pulsory method The potato control
law was one of the most punitively
stringent ever put upon the American
statute books.
That is the path we have already
trod. until the Supreme Court in Janu-
! airy. 1885, declared A. A. A. unconstitu-
tional. That is the path we are invited
to tread again.
This Is the Question.
From the point of view of the farm
ers the question is whether they want
to submit to this kind of control.
From the point of view of the whole
public. the consumers, the question
can be stated. for example, thus: The
price of food is rather high. 1t is
high because the quantity raised has
been kept low by the administration.
There are farmers who would be glad
to raise more food and sell it at a
lower price. But to these farmers it
is proposed that the Government shall
say one of two things:
Under compulsory control the Gov
ernment is to say to the farmer. if you
raise more food than the quota We as
sign to you. you shall be punished, by
a punitive tax on the excess you sell,
and by Jail or fine for violation Of
our regulations. Under the voluntary
system, the administration is to say
to the farmer, in effect:
I'VE will pay you so much cash per
bushel or per animal if you will
promise not to raise any more bushels
or animals than the quota We assign
you"
What we shall find out when Con-
gress meets is whether the country as
a whole wants either kind Of crop
control.
(Copyrieht. 1879