Milford chronicle., 1955-10-14
AGRICULTURE AND THE $3.50 Law

One vital phase Of u. S. maritime policy,
as affirmed by Congress, is found in what is
popularity known as the $3.50 law. This law
stipulates that not less than half of govern
ment-fnanced (which means taxpayer-fnan-
ced) cargOS must move in American-t1ag
ships-if those ships are available, and offer
reasonable rates.
At the last session of Congress strong
effort was made to repeal the law, but it was
defeated. Now it looks as if there will be
further challenge to this eminently reason
able measure when Congress reconvenes in
January.
Oddly enough, opponents of the $3.50 law
charge, as one of their arguments, that it
has slowed up the surplus agricultural dis
posal program. This is not the case. About
.65 per cent Of the original three-year author
izatiOn Of surplus sales was committed or
programmed in only 10 months. AS of last
June 30 tWenty-One agreements with II for
eign nations had been signed. Denmark alone
refused to buy farm SURPRISES from us be-
cause of 50-50.
Agriculture, actually, should be among
the foremost supporters of $3.50 or any ether
reasonable law which helps to strengthen the
.U. S. merchant marine. Foreign sales ac-
count for an important proportion Of the
American farm incOme-and it should be
obvious to- all that in these unpredictable
days it would be folly to depend on foreign
an adequate merchant marine of our own.
In the case of $3.50, the two often-Over-
looked qualifications that the law applies
only if the ships are available and the rates
are fair gives complete protection to all con-
cerned Next sessions attack on the law
should meet the same fate as that of last
session, which was failure.
N10%G
HOW SHALL WE PAY FOR HIGHWAYS? :?
- -. N.,A
one wants more and better highways but no
one wants to pay for them.
At the same time, it's obvious that huge
sums are going to be spent on new. highway
programs and that the financing problem will
have to be solved one way or another.
President Petersen of the Standard Oil
Company of California has offered logical
suggestion. 1t is based on the idea that a
modern, expanded highway system should be
paid for out of taxes levied upon more of the
people and products benefitting from good
roads. This, as he put it, would Include all
motor vehicles automobiles, trucks, buses
and trailers. All acceSsories-tlreS and tubes
of all sizes; batteries, spark plugs and the
like" 1t would also involve additional taxes
on the owners of roadside property who gain
from highway building, and on paying ma
terials and equipment.
In addition, he had something wise to say
about the emphasis on gasoline and other
motor fuel taxes as a source of highway
funds These taxes are high now and, as he
observed, "any substantial increases .
might well push the tax up to the point of
diminishing returns
He made still another worthwhile sug-
gestion-thatsthe federal government retire
from the field of motor fuels taxation and
leave it to the states, where it traditiOnally
and rightfully belong The states, for their
part, should ear-mark all highway user taxes
for highway construction purposes only.
They should never be diverted to other pur-
poses.
The whole point is to extend the tax base
so as to cover as many highway benefciaries
as possible. There is no other sound and
just, way of raising the needed money.