Evening star., 1939-05-09
Senator Gillette Sees
Distribution as Key
In Farm Problem
Former at Mercy
Of Buying System,
Says Forum Speaker
Continued from page B-1o)

RTcAL Oc6l aOOuL tIlc MCNdIy-
Haugen plan. Those advocating this
plan reasoned that agriculture was
put at disadvantage because Of
these tariff rates, and proposed a
plan which they hoped would make
the tariff effective for agriculture.
This plan contemplated the subsi-
dizing of the export of agricultural
products. They argued that If we
could export our surplus wheat, cot
ton and other products. the price of
the products on the home market
would then be on an import basis
and the tariff become effective. The
export debenture plan was based on
this reasoning also, with the differ
ence that the bounty on exports was
to be paid from the Federal Treas
ury, rather than by the imposition
of an equalization fee, to be collected
in trade channels. The McNary-
Haugen bill passed Congress twice,
and each time was vetoed by the
President for the stated reason that
increased prices would increase pro-
duction, and the dumping Of sur
pluses abroad would create inter-
national resentment and further
restrictions Of markets against us.
Farm Board Method Tried.
In the presidential campaign Of
1898, the agricultural problem was
q leading issue. The Federal Farm
Board was set up very soon after
the inauguration Of President
Hoover. 1t again stated the fact
that a farmer sold on an unor-
ganized market and bought on a
controlled and organized market.
The Federal Farm Board proposed
to organize the farmers into Nation
wide cooperative groups for COM
modify marketing, and thus insure
the flow Of these products into their
respective markets IN accordance
with the market needs. Many things
contributed to the failure Of the
plan. First, it began its attempts
in period Of falling prices. Trying
to hold up these prices, it began to
purchase and store certain farm
staple products as they came onto
the market Prices continued to
fall, however, and the Farm Board
found that the $500 ,000,00 given
to it was tied up in loans to the
marketing organizations and in the
stored products which it had pur-
chased to take them of the market.
AS an example of the result-when
the Farm Board began operations,
wheat was selling at 81 per bushel;
by 1882 it was selling at considerably
less than half that figure.
Again, in the campaign of 1882,
with agricultural prices at almost
an all-time ruinous level, with farm
ers in many sections picketing the
roads in a desperate attempt to
prevent any of their products reach
ing a market and thus to starve the
Nation into realization of their des-
perate plight. the question again be-
came an outstanding issue at the
polls. Soon after the convening of
the Congress in a special session In
1888, 1t passed the Agricultural Ad-
justment Act of 1888. This plan
called for control Of agricultural
production by adjustments. The
thought was to profit by the failure
of the Farm Board and control
marketing of raw materials by con-
trolling the amount produced. and,
again, by this method, to make the
tariffs effective as to these farm
products.
It is difficult fully to realize the
significance OF this policy as adopted
for farming. From the beginning of
organized society, the raising of
large volumes Of food supplies and
the holding of the price for these
products at low level was a major
effort of all governments. In almost
every State Of the Union there were,
and still are, on the statute books
criminal statutes Furnishing at
tempts to raise artificially the
price Of food and other necessities
for human life. In addition, our
farmers had always bitterly fought
monopoly practices and control of
the price of the things they bought:
The force Of farm opinion has been
potent in securing the passage of
much Federal legislation along these
lines, such as the Clayton Anti Trust
Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act,
the creation Of the Federal Trade
Commission and the Interstate Com
merce Commission. But, with this
special session. the farmer en-
barked on a course of controlling
his own prices-fighting fire with
f1re-meeting control with control.
Plan Provokes Arguments.
The plan caused, and is still caus-
ing, violent debate and argument.
Opponents call 1t the doctrine of
scarcity, and hold that we cannot
consume to the limits Of our needs
unless we produce, and they further
point to the apparent contradiction
Of legislative effort to decrease acre
age and, at the same time, to
appropriate large sums for irriga-
tion and acreage expansion. The
proponents point out that the policy
contemplates enabling the producer
Of raw materials to do what industry
has been doing for generations
adjusting production to maintain
price. They particularly called at
tention to the fact that the output
Of our leading industries in 1882
was reduced to maintain price, and
again, in the winter Of 1937-3s, in
dustry reduced its output by 80 per
cent in another desperate attempt
to check falling prices.
Whatever one may think Of the pro-
duction control method (and I am
one who has opposed IT., we must
admit, in fairness, that industry and
agriculture must be on the same
policy basis, whatever 1t may be, and
as long as agriculture follows q policy
Of producing to the limit and accept
ing low prices, while industry can
curtail production and raise its
prices, the disparity from which the
farmer suffers must increase, rather
than diminish.
The Supreme Court, in 1896, de-
clared the original Agricultural Ad-