Evening star., 1938-10-18


american Govern David Lawrence.
ment has author
.ized subsidies from 1888 through l94o
of about $7.50O,000 900.
During the Hoover period the sup
sides amounted to about 81 l,00o, ,ooo'ooo,
hit the final loss of the Farm Board
after liquidation was in the nelghoor-
hood of only $25O,O00,O00. What the
total loss under the Roosevelt aomln-
istration would be if the loans mace 10
farmers were lquidated and the COM
modities on hand sold is difficult TO
measure, but the amount OF farm
products held directly or indirectly
bv the Government today exceeds by
many times the quantities held during
the Hoover period.
Cry Raised in 1920.
Demand for farm relief began IN
1920, lust after the World War had
stimulated production in order to !eeo
the allied countries. Various plans
to take care, by law, of the huge farm
surpluses were offered, principal among
them being the McNary- -Haugen plan
which was supported as much by Re
nublicans as by Democrats, and yet,
after veto by Republican Presidents
who believed it unconstitutional, there
was not enough strength in Congress
to put it on the statute books. Ihe
nlan was a complicated formula for
dumping American surplus abroad
with the use of an equalization fee.
The Hoover administration was
challenged to produce a SUBSTITUTE
and it started to peg farm prices
through the Federal Farm Board. But
it could not control foreign production
or prices nor could it curtail produc-
ton at home. When the Roosevelt
administration took up the burden,
plan to cut down acreage was put into
effect first through the A. A. A. ana
later through revised laws which aimed
at virtually the same thing.
Ills Remain Despite "Cure."
TO compensate the farmer for
diminished productions, various sub
sides since have been offered. None
Of the plans Of the last II years has
succeeded. and America today is face
to face with just as serious a farm
,problen as in 1920. Secretary Wallace
has been urged by Republicans like
Senator Vandenberg Of Michigan to
adopt two-price crop system-a plan
whereby American farmers would get
q certain high price for their crops
at home, but the surplus would be
dumped abroad for whatever 1t would
bring in world markets.
Mr.. Wallace has countered with the
suggestion that If any dumping Is
done it should be in home markets so
that the so-called one-third OF the
population undernourished and under
fed would get the benefit of the dump
ing. Unfortunately, whoever told the
Secretary about the idea must have
been thinking only of the politics OF
1.-THE theory Of doing more for the
people at home than abroad-but the
plan wouldn't work that way. To be-
gin selling wheat or cotton or any
thing else to one group inside the
country at one price and to others
at another price would be impractical
and would amount to a direct subsidy
to various groups so that the prin-
ciple would be insisted upon in every
thing else from food to clothing and
the whole economic structure would
become strained.
Apology Due.
The fact remains that the farm
problem is no nearer solution than it
was in Hoover's days and many of the
stump speakers of 1882 really owe an
apology to their political opponents
for what they condemned then and
what they promised in its stead.
The real difficulty, of course, is that
the subsidy method keeps prices above
their natural levels. Instead of cur
failing production, the economic way
to handle American farming is to
increase the product and move it into
world markets. Unquestionably world
markets for cotton have been taken
away from America by many countries
which would not be able to produce
comparatively with us if the American
Government didn't insist on keeping
the price above the natural level.
American farmers in past history
have made money with low farm prices
because they have been able to produce
in large quantity for export. Foreign
countries today need American farm
products. Their economic systems
need American capital. The making
OF loans for all kinds of foreign trade
might cost the American Government
something in the long run, but the
chances are 1t would be far cheaper
than the farm subsidy plans. This Is
because American working classes
would benefit through increased en-
ployment and hence the consumption
OF American farm commodities would
be correspondingly increased.
Agricultural relief is an old subject,
but it will come up more and more In
the next several months as . para
mount political issue.
(copyrisht. 199s.J