The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1937-11-11
(j!o!!ii'iaa! 9&IS5jiqaik{
National Topics Interpreted "a NATURALIZATION
by William Bruckart TTTTTfTHLW
National PressB NET-13rhT
What VIII
1t Hatch?

pa GU W iioeSAt
Whdt wa something fr m
1t Hatch? the nest of crop
control eggs. At
this stage of the proceeding, no one
can make a guess as to the brood
that congress will produce any bet
ter than a farmers wife can tell
what will be Matched by a real hen
IN her chicken house.
About all that can be said for sure
is that President Roosevelt called
congress into special session to
enact crop control legislation and,
therefore, there is likely to be crop
control legislation of some kind. It
may not be Matched in the special
session; the chances are that the
many differences of opinion and the
many demands cannot be reconciled
in the six weeks which the special
session may occupy before the
regular session of congress con-
venes in January.
In addition to the lack of time in
which to maturely examine crop
control questions, a rivalry has de-
veloped between the house and the
senate over the honor of drafting
and putting through the law which
will tell the farmers what they can
and what they cannot do as farm
ers. Let me say just here that such
rivalry may work to the benefit of
agriculture because it is bound to
mean a compromise between the
house and senate on the legislation
that finally is enacted. In other
words, extremists, for and against
any proposal, will have to yield and
this may possibly result in some
workable program for crop control.
The main question before con-
gress is the type of crop control
law to be enacted. There are two
kinds. Control may be compulsory
or it may be voluntary. Most of
the powers that be in the Depart
ment of Agriculture seem to favor
the compulsory kinda law that
will tell the farmers they can or
cannot do certain things and if they
violate the decree, they can be
punished. Many groups of farm
ers, however do not want that
sort of thing. In consequence we
find in congress now proponents of
both the compulsory and the vol
untary programs and each side
appears to be determined in its posi-
ton.
We have seen both types used. Po-
tato growers will remember how
the potato control law laid down
the rule that a quota of production
should be imposed upon every farm
er and that he must pay As cents
per bushel above the value of his
potatoes for every bushel produced
above his quota. These growers
will remember also the agricultural
adjustment administration require
ment that all potatoes sold must be
packaged in certain way that was
prescribed for the grower by the
AAA In this connection it will be
recalled how there was penalty in
addition for those who failed to prop
erly package the potatoes they sold.
Beyond these requirements, there
was also a penalty prescribed to be
invoked against any person who
did not properly package his pota-
toes and place a government stamp
thereon.
Besides all this, there was an Gin
former section in the potato con-
troll law. 1t provided something of
bounty for any person who re-
layed to the authorities any infor-
nation he had respecting failure of
any farmer to comply with the law
and the regulations issued there
under. 1t was reminiscent of pro-
hibition days when informers were
paid to squeal on bootleggers.
The compulsory cotton control
law was less stringent but it had
mana 1fioc affocbod