OCR Text |
Show WASHINGTON. There was a press statement sent around to newspaper offices Significant the other day that Decision failed to attract any attention. It failed to gain any publicity at all and yet, it seems to me, it was one of the most significant announcements announce-ments to come from any government govern-ment department in months. The statement, issued by the Agricultural Agricul-tural Adjustment administration, said simply that a decision had been reached "against making effective a potato marketing agreement and order program covering interstate shipment of ' potatoes grown in 13 early and intermediate states." The AAA announcement explained that thes"overall vote" was sufficiently suffi-ciently large to make the marketing agreement operative under the law, but it was the conviction of officials that it was "not feasible" to place the program In effect in the light of the character of the vote taken. In some areas of the 13 states and, indeed, in-deed, in some of the states as a whole, there was actually a majority major-ity of the producers of potatoes who voted against the agreement. Thus, for the first time, a marketing market-ing agreement sponsored by the Agricultural Ag-ricultural Adjustment administration administra-tion is rejected. Perhaps, to be technically correct, I ought to say that, for the first time, there was such lack of public support that a marketing agreement has been abandoned before it was started. Certainly, it the folks charged with official responsibility deem a plan unlikely to succeed, there must be a quite evident lack of enthusiasm for it. The tendency heretofore has been to cram rules and regulations and marketing agreements and contracts con-tracts and what have you right down the farmers' throats as a means of "educating" them to the benefits eventually accruing. Recognition of this lack of support, therefore, constitutes con-stitutes something of a change in the attitude of the AAA, but the significant sig-nificant thing as far as I am concerned con-cerned continues to be the fact that the farmers again are asserting their .independence. It amounts to a sign that agriculture has begun to desire less of Washington meddling in management of farms. There are obviously two schools of thought about government's relations rela-tions with agriculture in this country. coun-try. There is the philosophy represented repre-sented by Secretary Wallace and his followers who favor crop control. It was they who argued for the program pro-gram of scarcity of supplies as a means to the more abundant life for the farmer, and it is the same Mr. Wallace who now is promoting what he is pleased to call the "ever normal nor-mal granary" idea. The other group of friends of agriculture take the position po-sition fundamentally that the farmer farm-er should have some form of government gov-ernment assistance, but they object strenuously to any program that contemplates regimentation Washington Wash-ington control over how the farmer operates his farm and what he produces. pro-duces. I suppose that the marketing agreement idea is a proper one to be carried out if the crop curtailment idea is to be paramount as a national nation-al policy. It is an historical fact, of course, that adoption of one type of regulation begets other regulations. No man ever lived who could conceive, con-ceive, at one time, all of the necessary neces-sary rules to control a set of circumstances circum-stances in which natural laws figure. fig-ure. And natural laws figure in any question of production of farm crops. So when and if there is to be national crop control, there must be these subsidiary and district programs pro-grams to carry out the broader aspects as-pects of a plan. . Since I never have been convinced that a national crop control program . was sound, it was Rejected no surprise to me By Farmers to learn of what amounts to a plain rejection of the theory by the farmers, farm-ers, or one segment of them. The wonder to me is that these same farmers waited so long to reassert themselves as bosses of their business. busi-ness. It may be an incident, however, how-ever, that proves the statement of one farmer who wrote to me saying, say-ing, "We may be slow in learning, but when we learn we usually are right." One of the reasons given privately for the rejection of the potato agreement agree-ment was that the "educational work" in advance of the vote by eligible eli-gible producers "wa3 not of a very high order." But why, I ask, Is It necessary for our government to use propaganda at any time? There might be an emergency, such as came with the World war, when propaganda can be justified. Otherwise, Other-wise, I feel it Is not a function of government, and one of the results is bound to be a government by men and not by law. The government govern-ment Is not anybody's salesroom. Our congress and tho legislatures of states are elected by popular vole of tho citizens. They aro the fellows who create policy, not officials of-ficials appointed to ofTlca. There might be some interest in an examination of the states concerned con-cerned in this proposed, and now abandoned, marketing agreement They are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Cal-ifornia, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Caro-lina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, The AAA announcement an-nouncement said there were 7,300 producers voting on the adoption of the agreement. My information is that this number is a pitifully small proportion of potato growers, even the growers of "early" and "intermediate" "inter-mediate" potatoes as distinguished from fall potatoes. Yet, there was not a sufficient number of these to warrant the AAA in making the program pro-gram operative. What happened to the other growers? Well, I can make only one guess, namely, they just did not have any interest in it. Of course, it may be different with growers of other crops. It must be recalled, however, that there has been a multiplicity of evidence that the corn farmers are dissatisfied, 'and there have been howls from the cotton growers and from the tobacco tobac-co growers, and the wheat sections are the source of other complaints. I have no way of knowing what proportion pro-portion of the growers of these crops are represented in the opposition already al-ready voiced. There can be no doubt on one point, however. The independence inde-pendence of the farmer is bound to be shown and if he is becoming disgusted dis-gusted with bureaucratic direction of his affairs, it is a condition that is more likely to spread than to decline de-cline in scope. And speaking of regulation, I heard a conversation the other day that I am going to Case or record here as Corrigan faithfully as I can recall the words. It took place at my favorite table in the National Press club, a large table at which men gather for lunch, Usually, all 12 places are filled, and the types of work and means of livelihood represented are interesting interest-ing of themselves some lawyers, some government officials, some trade representatives, some writers. On this particular day, Douglas Corrigan, flying "west" from New York to California, had landed in Ireland without a permit from the department of commerce. The question: ques-tion: what could or should the department de-partment of commerce do about the violation of its sacred rules? "Of course," said former Sen. C. C. Dill of Washington, "the department depart-ment must take away his license. It has to do it. If it doesn't, there will be any number of foolhardy lads try the same thing." "Well, now," observed H. O. Bishop, Bish-op, famed student of George Washington, Wash-ington, "I just wonder whether that's right. Here we have a government gov-ernment department telling one and all of us that we must not fly across the ocean unless we get their permission. per-mission. What are we coming to in this country? Presently, we will have to have a permit to walk across the Potomac river bridge. It may come to the end that we have to have a permit to buy food as they do in Russia." Senator Dill: "Oh, but that's not the point. There is a question of safety involved, human lives." Mr. Bishop: "The railroad engineer engi-neer isn't licensed. He is responsible responsi-ble for hundreds of human lives. This whole thing of the government getting tangled up in everything we do is silly. We don't have a democracy, de-mocracy, any liberty, any more. It was the spirit of adventure that made this country great." Senator Dill: "True. Take the Corrigan incident, however, and think what the government would spend looking for him if his $900 crate had fallen in the Atlantic. I've an idea that the cost of looking for Amelia Earhart mounted to several hundred thousand dollars. If tho government hadn't, made an effort to look for her, or for Corrigan if he had fallen, the newspapers of the country would have 'burned up' the officials responsible." Mr. Bishop: "Where's it going to stop? Year after year, we sec rattle brains get Into congress and immediately imme-diately promote some new regulation regula-tion or create another political bureau bu-reau or commission." And so it went, on and on. Some finished their lunches and left; others oth-ers came, and the argument was continued. A few days later, the National Press club entertained Howard Hughes and his 'round-the-world flyers fly-ers at a luncheon. Mr. Hughes was praised and his aides commended. commend-ed. They had made all preparations for their flight in accordance with department of commerce requirements. require-ments. They were successful In their effort. And what do you think the bucccss of the Hughes trip subsequently sub-sequently was used by the same two men as a means of renewing their argument. The moral? If any, It proves why a democracy Is a good form of government. gov-ernment. If you have on opinion, express It. G Western Nowspripcr Unlun. |