The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1942-05-15

have most everything needed today
Q produce sugar enough to supply our
own needs, If permitted to do So
I and If we had developed our sugar
Y production, we would not be on ra-
lions today. How much additional In
l come would that bring In to our farm
ers? How much more employment
: would that production give to labor,
] tional business would that give to our
cities? How much increase would
} that production add to our national
income? Protect this production
: against cheaply produced imported
products and prices would stabilize
i itself without subsidies at parity and
wages would stabilize at fair parity
also.
The internationalists with their In
vestments in sea commerce and facili-
ties and control of the world finances
want international trade
The American producers want our
own markets for our own farmers, our
own laborers and our own business
people. 1t means progress. 1t means
an opportunity to develop. It means
freedom
Internationalism means low prices
and would in the final analysis force
the American standard of living down
to the world level
If our policy had been progressive
we would have developed our own
rubber production. 1t is stated that
both synthetic rubber and alcohol for
smokeless powder can be made from
both corn and wheat, we should thank
God for having the so-called SURPRISES
to make it from, or the war demands
would force the rationing of bread,
the war demands might force the corn
into war needs, which would inevita-
| bly, starve our pigs and cattle If we
did not have SURPRISES, we are lucky
we have an abundance of corn or
soon meat would be rationed. We
were asked to vote a quota on wheat,
and we are Informed it passed. l op-
posed it. Was sugar quota placed
on the American producers because
of a surplus of domestica1ly produced
sugar? Emphatically No. The farm
ers were not permitted to vote against
a sugar quota. Why? There has
been some unjust criticism against
our representative from the second
district of Montana, but I remember
what Jim said; l quote: "if sugar
quotas meant putting the farmers on
relief, l would much rather see the
Cuban farmers on relief than the
American farmers" In the discussion
the fact was brought out that 80 per
cent Of the sugar plantations of Cuba
were owned by the International
Bankers Of our sea coast cities, and
that Sc per cent of all of the produc-
tive land in Cuba was owned by that
group. The natural conclusions is
that the quota was to keep the Amer
lean farmers from producing sugar for
own domestic market, SO the interna-
tional bankers would have the Amer
lean market for the products from
their foreign investments.
Was there ever a surplus of rice
produced in the United States? Again
No. Then why quota? 1t could not
be for any other purpose than to
keep the American farmers from pro-
ducing rice; so there would be inter-
national commerce with China, refer
you to The Congressional Record of
November 10, 1941, page 1860 for posi-
i've proof.
Montana produces premium wheat,
out was placed In the wheat control
while some states were not,
md they were permitted to increase
he national acreage to the highest
POINT in our history; they were al
owed wheat base built up while
Montana was under control They
we're then brought into the control
program. It was necessary to ask for
IN additional acreage reduction, and
o compel Montana and other states
o accept the second reduction, the
uota referendum was called, but with
threat, If not approved, there would
70 no stabilizing loans. If we think
t all we remember that we did have
he stabilizing loans before we had
he quota. That is coercion, and is
ot true democratic vote.
Apparently the hazards of sea COM
lerce has made it necessary to stabil-
70 the prices of all commodities and
lake it possible to produce it in
merica The lesson we have learned
rings home the fact that the mistake
as made when the control program
tarted, that the prices Of the nom
lrplus should have been stabilized
nd there would have been an incen-
We for the farmers to shift into the
reduction of non-surplus crops, in
cad OF being forced to, or encour-
5ed to produce more surplus wheat;
IS, l will fight for justice for the
ontana farmer. Why was the prices
non-surplus crops below parity, l
slieve it was because the information
lists group wanted to import cheap
produced foreign products and sell
the American market at a higher
ice and make little extra profit
I'd possibly in time break down our
CHER standard of living and wages.
,me Of the present cabinet members
TX free trade, and we know the trade
.reements has lowered tariffs Tar
8 are for the specific purpose of
costs, SO we In America
at are on higher standard of liv-
tn the foreign producers that are
much lower standard. There
ems to be trend in some of the