The Ely miner., 1942-10-08
Metes $ Eromm
wAsHlN Ton
~ u
S.s.,sr [sNARH
4NA J -
BALL WONDERS IF FARM
LEADERS ARE INCONSISTENT.

I have been accused of being
against" the farmer. AS matter OF
fact, I have never considered myself
as being "for" or against" any group.
am for the United States and it has
been my aim to support policies which
would win this war, spread its burden
equitably and preserve government
"of, by and for the people"
Basis of the current charge is my
opposition to the ThomaS-Hatch
amendment to the imitation bill, which
sought to change the parity formula
to include costs of "all farm labor"
That amendment was sponsored by
farm organization lobbyists.
The facts show that the amendment
not only was an empty gesture so far
as agriculture is concerned, but that
the row over it actually prevented a
real initiation control measure which
might have helped farmers. What are
those facts?
The effect of the amendment was to
raise permissible ceilings on farm
prices from ITO to 112.5 per cent, this
in response to a presidential message
asking that ceilings be lowered to 100
per cent. President ROOSEVELT was
| unfair to agriculture when he charged
it with responsibility for imitation in
his message, but the net result of the
farm bloc maneuvers was to erase that
| blunder and convince the bulk of the
| public that the President had been
| right in his accusation against agri-
culture.
And this for an empty gesture,
empty because when taken in rela-
ton to the other provisions of the
bill providing for no lowering of prices
below those on September Is, the
amendment would not have allowed
any increases in prices of lambs, veal
beef or hogs.
1t would have permitted an increase
of 19 cents pound in butterfat, G
cents dozen in eggs, and even the
| Administration comedies these prices
must be increased to maintain pro-
duction. 1t also would have raised
permissible ceilings on wheat, corn
and oats considerably, but there are
now selling far below the old ceilings
and will not increase because of the
huge surpluses existing.
The amendment would have permit
ted an increase of some 8 cents q
pound in cotton prices, and that is
about the only substantial thing ir
it. And we have more cotton than we
need.
Speakers talked for days about The
critical labor shortage on farms, the
result partly of selective service but
primarily of the attraction of huge
industrial wages. That was supposed
to be an argument for the amend.
ment, but no one claimed and no one
contends that farmers under any cir.
cumstances will be able to pay wage:
comparable to those in war indus
tries. Food prices would have to rist
fantastically before farmers could pay
the $40 and $50 week that industr!
pays, and no farm bloc spokesman
contended it could be done. The labol
shortage on farms is manpowel
problem and not price problem.
But there was one move that no
only would have been a first stel
toward helping the farm labor pro
blem but would have been real mov'
to control initiation. That step was Il
write into the anti-inflation bill :
firm ceiling on industrial wages ana
salaries, so that they at least coult
, not rise still higher and increase still
further the disparity with farm in
come.
Furthermore, we have ample evi
dence in recent events that the Roose
velt Administration will deal firml.
in curbing initiation, but we have jus
as strong evidence that when it come
to curbing inf1ationary wage increase
the Roosevelt Administration will no
resist pressure from the Labor bloc
Therefore, it was extremely importan
; to write into the pending bill a reall.
effective ceiling on wages.
I offered an amendment to d.
: exactly that. It had been accepted
tentatively in the Banking and Cur
rency Committee and then strickel
out at the demand of Phil Murray
CIO president. I offered the sam
amendment to put ceiling on wage
and salaries on the Senate floor Their
were exactly II votes for it, including
my own, and SO against.
Every single leader of the farm