The Coolidge examiner., 1937-12-02
Distribute, Don't
Destroy Crops
BY Senator WILLIAM F. BORAH
in Rural Progress Magazine

Congress is not dealing with farm
legislation to meet an emergency.
but is seeking to establish a perm
anent policy for agriculture.
Th ngs which may be justified to
meet an emergency may be ex-
tremd'y unwise as q permanent
pdicy. 1t does not seem to me-
that compulsory reduction of crops
r other words compulsory destruc-
tiCn o foodstuffs. has any place
in a sound permanent agricultural
policy. In this country we have mil
lions, literally millions. in greet
need Of those things which it is
proposed by some that we destroy.
We ought TO thank our farmers
every day of our Ives for the en-
ergy and industry and intelligence
which gives this country a surplus
and devote our selves to finding
a wise method of distributing that
surplus rather than destroying t
This surplus Of foodstuffs belongs
in the stomach of American Chill
dren, millions of whom are under
nurished and poorly clad, and in
the homes and cupboards of mil
lions of families. 1t IS wicked TO
penaliZe the farmer, to put him in
a strait-jacket, for producing that
which the American people sorely
need but which we have not yet
found way to distribute If the
American people as a whole could
have the necessities of life, there
would not be any overproduction
upon the farm. Our task of legisla
ton is not destruction but distribu
ton.
If it is found necessary to draw
upon the public treasury in order
to deal with the farm problem. !
would rather support a measure to
buy and store the surplus and see
that it gets to those in need of it,
rather than to buy destruction. II
has been demonstrated that if the
American people as a whole could
eniov a decent standard of living,
they would need at least ten mil
lion more food produc ng acres to
meet the demand.
We are told that we are now fol
lowing the plan, in a measure, OF
that inspired Hebrew leader, who
thousands of years ago in Egypt
undertook to deal with surpluses.
But there was no curtailment OF
production. no reduction of produc-
ton in Josaph's scheme. Joseph
had many strange dreams but he
never dreamed of destroy ng food
stuffs. The central idea of Joseph 5
plan was production and distri9u-
ton at the right time and under
-re proper circumstances
Sc have surplus in this coun-
t-v not becsuse OF producing more
IAN we ~. but because a vast
proportion OF our peop.e hase not
t., means buy wb3 they ohght
t. rave. Yol can go into mill oas
Of American homes not ft'.ri
=. mes, eithe~ and you - find the
nrusewife cl tting GU the meat
supply more days in the week,
skimping here and there on
food. keeping more children out OF
school because they are UNDER
nourished. While that condition
prevails this country, | feel We
ought to find some way to deal
with the matter rather than by
compulsory reduction of f0odstuffs.
Let us consider this question
from another viewpoint. The able
Secretary of Agriculture, Mr.. Wal
lace, spoke a while ago at Memphis
on the Cotton control question. Mr..
Wallace S too candid to discuss
effectively a reduction scheme. II
appears that since we began cotton
reduction and control, foreign ma
tions have increased their cotton
supply by more than ten million
bales. When we advertise to the
world that we are going to reduce
our acreage IN any world commodl-
ty it excites other nations TO IN
crease their acreage, which other
nations are now doing. The cotton
producer is in almost as serious a
condition now as he ever expert
enced. What has happened to the
cotton grower will inevitably hap
q