OCR Text |
Show iorial Tories Interpreted 7g by William JBruckt fi.intr pise Wasl.Inston.-It uas been Just a ,-ear since Franklin Delano Roose-volt Roose-volt carried his A Year of the "new deal" pro- "A'eu Deal ecmlve Mansion at Washington, and the country has witnessed in that time, many of the most revolutionary changes in Its economic and social and financial structure that could be imagined. Indeed, in a nation that has a tradition tra-dition of being largely conservative, some of the things that have happened, hap-pened, or have been brought about by the new dealers, could not even be imagined except by those who dwell in the house of the theorist. But they have come; they are with us, and without commendation or criticism, it is being asked: what have we? For one thing, In the past twelve months we have observed the slowly slow-ly stretching tentacles of the federal fed-eral government reaching out into hitherto unknown functions: we have seen those same tentacles taking tak-ing over more and more the rights of individuals and of states and lesser divisions of government, and we have witnessed what some per-.nnc, per-.nnc, t,M tn he nn nhsolnte destruc tion of that basic difference between be-tween one nation and a union of our several states. That is, according accord-ing to the view just set forth, we are for the period of the emergency at least, just one people instead of peoples of the 4S states and the District Dis-trict of Columbia. Also, I think It is true that never In our history have we known a time when the President of the United States was possessed of such power either legally le-gally or politically, as now. In the preparation of this weekly letter, I consulted with men . and women of thought and.vision, and I believe there was no exception to the conviction that none can accurately accu-rately forecast what the ultimate results of these changes are going to be. Economic and social changes are slow to mature into their full effect. It is natural that they should be. So it is going to be some years before we can know whether the theories and the plans of the new dealers will be accepted into the basic structure of American lives. Of one thing we can be sure: if all of the changes, or even half of them, are knitted permanently into our social structure, the accomplishment accom-plishment of these last twelve months in that direction will have been greater by many times than the changes that have occurred in any other century, indeed, in several sev-eral centuries combined. Take, for example, the principles of NRA, AAA, and the others of the "alphabetical organizations." Every one of them has injected into American life projects and propositions which were rejected in one form or another in their basic ideas in years gone by. Under the desperation of the depression, they were hurled into the whirlpool of our social structure with varying success, as measured by the results thus far. Nearly all of the principles princi-ples injected into the commercial lifeblood of the nation are of a character char-acter to promote group or unit action ac-tion distinguished from individual action that was developed with the opening up of American resources re-sources after formation of the Union. We never have known, for instance, a time when our government govern-ment told business in so many words that it could work together as a unit, if it met certain requirements, require-ments, nor have we ever known a time when our government said to j agriculture that it had to cut down its production In a monopolistic agreement in order to force higher prices. One could go on and on with Illustrations. Now, to repent the earlier question ques-tion : what have we? There is, and can be, little doubt of economic progress in the last few months. The Noticeable country has Progress merged from the depression, to some extent at least, i believe no one can say with assurance, how-I how-I ever, that we are far enough on the I roal to recovery that we can be sure of no relapse. But those per- sons who are best In a position to appraise conditions certainly feel there has been a gain. As to tlie cause of this improvement, improve-ment, one can pick up an argument almost anywhere. The ardent sup-I sup-I porters of the new deal assert the Roosevelt policies are responsible, j while those opposed to the Roosevelt policies claim there is a possibility that some or all the progress made j came from the natural wearing out of ; the depression. That is, history re-j re-j cords the same course for all depressions. depres-sions. Stocks and supplies are exhausted ex-hausted aud production starts up of Its own accord to meet the demand. So we are starting in on a second year of the new deal, as I see the Picture, still uncertain as to the outcome out-come but equipped with greater con fidence than obtained among the rsuk and file of the people a year ago. It will be recalled how many times President Roosevelt has said In presenting new items in his new dea,, that here was something else ,o trv He has experimented. The to try. ,,,, eppm to indl- law of average might seem i can say with assurance v.hch they were and how much influence each had? It is my conviction that anvone attempting to make an un qualified statement of these resu ts at this time is either biased or in clined to stupidity. While we are looking into the extent ex-tent to which the Roosevelt policies have carried the Wide Powers federal govern- . a went in individual for Wallace affall.s lt ls proper prop-er to call attention to the far-reaching even sensational, proposal to give Secretary of Agriculture Wallace Wal-lace authority to control the amount of cotton that may be produced each year The legislation, known as 'the Bankhead bill, is undoubtedly the most important proposition yet devised for extending federal power, because it not only invades rights hitherto respected but It provides the secretary of agriculture with power to force cotton farmers to obey his orders in limiting the cotton cot-ton production. Succinctly, the Bankhead bill with which congress is now wrestling i would limit the production of cotton in the United States to nine million bales for the crop year of 1934-35, and in order to prevent the production produc-tion of a greater amount there is a destructive sales tax provided for application to the surplus. The tax is fixed at twelve cents a pound for the amount in excess of nine million bales, and that figure, of course, Is higher than the value of the cotton itself. To enable the secretary sec-retary of agriculture to control the production, each farmer who planted plant-ed cotton would have to obtain from the secretary what is described as a certificate of exemption for the amount he intended to produce. That is to say, the farmer would be given . a certificate exempting so many pounds of cotton from the operation op-eration of the sales tax, and it is presumed that the certificates of exemption will be issued only for the required amount. From this brief outline, it must be apparent that never before has there been such a drastic proposal for control of individual businesses of men in this country. I have heard all of the arguments favorable to the bill and some oi them against it, but none of them have made clear to me what can be done in poor crop years or in years when there is a bumper crop. What I mean is this: the total for the crop year of 1934-35 is fixed at nine million bales on the acreage of a "normal" or average year. But assume as-sume there is especially favorable weather in the year and the production produc-tion is far above the average, then will the farmer be penalized by having to destroy that part of his crop in excess of the amount stated on his certificate of exemption? Or what benefits will he gain when nature na-ture has smiled on his crop? There is also the converse of the proposition. Assume there is another anoth-er drought of 193C On the proportions and Other Hand t,le cotton crP Is virtually destroyed. de-stroyed. How is the cotton producer going to be rewarded for having reduced his acreage, and where will the country get its supplies oi cotton? Obviously, a short crop will enhance the price. Yet with a small acreage, will the farmer get even a fair return from the higher prices? Secretary Wallace of the Department Depart-ment of Agriculture called attention to another possible result of the bill. He told a congressional committee com-mittee that he feared there would be a regular business of dealing in exemption certificates develop from that feature of the bill. One can only guess where that would lead. Mr. Wallace said that the value of the exemption certificates obviously obvi-ously would fluctuate along with the rate of the tax on the excess, and the higher the rate of the tax the greater would be the value of the exemption certificate. "In so far as the exemption certificates cer-tificates are of high value," he said there may be a tendency to shirt he emphasis from cotton production produc-tion to an emphasis on procuring of exemption certificates. These cor tihcates themselves might become a commodity. This could mean tint "nous persons who In the pas have engaged In the production, o cotton and would be entitled to ex eruption certificates, may prefer to e.nam outof cotton production and to ely for part of their income n "ally received from cotton r cen'- "f " oxo Uo The secretary likewise pointed to -de for difference;", I tions or weather, between 1 lie? ' and south lines of ,11 mrth "nd onier such pu -0 ) |