Evening star., 1940-03-08

M N visers in, and
with them he
Charles G. Ross. had concocted
the infallible formula for curing the
farmers ills
Controversy over the farm prob
lem at that time ragged around the
McNary- -Haugen bill. Al Smith &C
cepted the principle" of the bill,
but when 1t came to the means by
which that principle was to be made
effective, the equalization fee" he
ducked. All matters of detail we're
to be left to an expert commission.
The speech, as handed out to the
press in advance, read beautifully.
1t is supposed to have been written
for the candidate by one of the
advisers on his campaign train,
Judge Proskauer of New York. In
the delivery of it, Gov. Smith didn't
do SO well. He extemporized, as
usual, from notes written on the
back OF an envelope. but he lust
couldn't escape giving the impres.
sion that he was parroting words
which had been handed to him.
Easily Seen Through.
1t was clear that Gov. Smith
wasn't speaking on subject he was
familiar with. such as the New York
budget. but on something for which
he had "crammed," like a schoolboy
for an examination. 1t was clear
that Gov. Smith was offering a
farm program different on its face
from that of his opponent. simply
because the cupposed exigencies Of
politics so demanded Mr.. Hoover
had put out program-I have for.
gotten just what it was, but it bore
down heavily on co-operation-and
1t was up to Mr. Smith, in the ritual
OF politics, to show that he had
better wares to offer the farmer
than Mr.. Hoover had.
Mr. Smith didn't get a chance 70
save the farmers: Mr.. Hoover didn't
save them; We still have the farm
problem with us, and fresh lot
OF candidates are telling what they
would do about it. The parallel be-
tween Mr.. Smith and Mr.. Dewey Is
particularly striking because each
carried his message into the West
from the sidewalks of New York.
and, as minor coincidence, chose
the same State in which to deliver
1t. But the similarity is not con-
fined to these two. Every candidate
who takes the stump feels that he
has got to present neatly packaged
solution for the farmers ills.
MIR. Dewey. not to be found want.
ing, offers a program in eight parts,
all bound together with the con.
clusion that Government must seek
first the advice of farmers rather
than the advice of clustered
theorists. Then it must act on that
advice (Which is precisely what
AL Smith said when he proposed
his commission back in 1929
Would Subsidize Differently.
Now Mr.. Dewey's program per-
fectly illustrates the plight of all
candidates when they talk about
saving the farmer. He would estab-
llsh a fair parity" between agri-
cultural and industrial prices, grant
Government crop insurance loans)
at reasonable levels, adopt direct
program Of soil conservation, con-
vert sub-marginal land to more eco
nomical uses, and so on. What Mr.,
Dewey proposes is hardly dis
tinguishable from what is being
done. He would subsidize the
farmer in little different manner
from that of the New Deal, and he
says he could do the JOB more eff
GENTLY. Perhaps he could, for the
methods of the New Deal laave
something to be desired but there's
nothing in his program on which to
base ringing attack on the New
Deal.
Such an attack. in the field of
farm legislation, is possible only If
the attacker wants to strike at the
principle on which the New Deal
program reSts-namely, subsidiza-
ton of the farmer. Mr.. Dewey does
not do this, nor will any other cam
didate. The plight of Mr.. Dewey
and of all other candidates is that
they know Of no other way, snort Of
industrial recovery, in which the
farmer can be given a measurable
degree OF prosperity. Nor does any,
body else.
Two Problems Tied.
All the candidates would get Just
as far with the electorate. maybe
farther, If they would call the sub
S1dy spade spade, admit that
pending general recovery the farm
program is bound to be purely up-
portunistic, and iterate and reiterate
that the only way to solve the farm
problem Is to solve another prob
lem-unemployment-with which It
Is inextricably tied up.
Mr.. Dewey, of course, sees that
here is the only ultimate solution.
He says as much, and so adds an
engaging note of frankness to the
campaign. He will lose nothing.
not even with the farmers, If, having
now made his ritualistic speech and
shown that his heart is In the right
place, he proceeds to discuss the
farm problem in terms Of complete
realism, as only one part Of the all
embracing problem Of unemploy-
ment. He can afford to forget his
eight points, make the one point
that he thinks he could do the farm
subsidy job better than the New
Dealers are doing it, and harp ever
lastingly on the question, as the
Glenn Frank report aptly puts it, Of
how the people who need more farm
products can be equipped with the
Yfaooac fra h1ixr fhox,a