Evening star., 1950-04-03

~ , VlCSSOSC VII
quotas are in effect. Since no
marketing quotas for potatoes are
permitted by present law, this
Section amounts to a policy dec
laration by the Congress that it
intends to enact better price sup
port legislation for potatoes than
we now have. With this purpose
I am in hearty accord.
Successive Secretaries of Agri-
culture have been urging the Con-
greSs for several years to enact
better legislation regarding pota-
toes, in order to bring supplies
into line with demand, to provide
better distribution of surplus po-
tatoes, and to reduce the cost of
the program to the Government.
To amend present law to provide
for effective marketing quotas
would be a substantial improve
ment over the present situation.
1t would not. however, in my judg-
ment, be all that is necessary. 1
again urge the Congress to auth
orize system of production pay
ments for potatoes land other
perishable commodities) SO that
unavoidable surpluses can be sold
to consumers and used, instead of
taken off the market and largely
wasted.
Sections and 7 of the Joint
Resolution deal with peanuts.
Section z is designed to provide
some relief for the peanut farmers
in several States particularly
Alabama and Texas whose acre
age was cut especially severely
under present law. I believe that
the peanut farmers Of the States
affected should have such relief,
and that is one Of the reasons
which led me to approve the
Joint Resolution. ~
Would Increase Planting.
: Section s, however, is another
matter. This section would per-
NIT the planting OF peanuts to be
Increased substantially above the
acreage allotments now estab-
lished. The peanuts produced on
these extra acres would not be
eligible for price support, but
would, instead, be sold for crush
ing, and the farmers would re-
ceive only what the resulting pea
nut oil would bring on the market.
The domestic. "two-price" system
for peanuts thus established is
subject to serious objections.
First, under present conditions,
the production of peanuts for oil
is Improbable for the growers
and is an uneconomic and waste
full use Of agricultural resources.
During the war and right after
wards, when fats and oils were
in seriously short supply, we
needed peanut oil badly. Now
that supplies of soybeans and
other more economical sources of
edible fats and oils are again suf-
ficient. it would be foolish to go
on using good land to produce
peanuts for oil which would not
yield a profit to the growers.
I believe that peanut farmers
will realize that it would not be
to their own best interests to ex-
pand their paintings Of peanuts
greatly. Consequently, I do not
expect large additional amounts
OF peanuts to be produced for oil
as a result Of this section. Never
theless, this provision represents
a breach In the integrity of the
quota system upon which the sup
port price program depends. If
it should be taken as a precedent
for other crops. the whole sup
port price program might be en-
dangered.
Sees Great Difficulties.
Second. the administrative diff
f1culties of operating this two
price" system for peanuts will be
very great. In order to prevent
the diversion Of peanuts produced
on the excess acres to the. higher
of the two price outlets, an extern
sive system Of inspection, identi-
fication. and supervision will have
to be developed. Administrative
difficulties should not stand in the
way of desirable programs, but in
this case a complicated, costly
and annoying administrative net
work will be required for a very
dubious purpose.
Above and beyond these specific
objections to Section 6, it may
have very unfortunate implica.
tions for future years and other
crops. II farmers do produce
large quantities Of peanuts for oil
at no profit. there will inevitably
be pressures for supporting the
n,.ire ~ r,aa mt oi1 In tha f,,f,,ra