OCR Text |
Show Washington. Several years ago I expressed in these columns the conviction con-viction that one One Thing thing America Needed needed was a con-ress con-ress which would cease attempting to amend the law of supply and demand. The observation was made in the midst of the most depressed economic conditions con-ditions that modern times had known and it brought down upon my head a vast amount of criticism. Readers wrote me at length about the stupidity that I had displayed by making such a statement Reference to that circumstance is made here at this time, because it is apropos again. It is apropos because be-cause we are in a political campaign cam-paign out of which will come either the re-election of Franklin D. Roosevelt Roose-velt or the election of Governor Landon of Kansas. The results of this political campaign are going to hinge to a considerable extent on the attitude of the farmers of this country and if there is one segment of the American economic structure to whom the law of supply and demand de-mand means more than to another, It is to the farmers. Now, Democratic spokesmen are going about the country talking about soil conservation, about relief for the farmers, about anything and everything that will give the farmers farm-ers money. Republican spokesmen are shout- ful as it is, the federal government has not and cannot have any function func-tion in that field for the reason that it inevitably leads further into pol- itics, further into waste and the eventual destruction of the people whom the demagogues claim they are helping. The reason I have advocated this action so strongly is the fact that there are too many tenant farmers in the United States now, far too many. It is fundamental, in my opinion, that this nation can get on with the present trend. Is is sad, but it is true, that there are about forty per cent of our farms now operated by tenants. In other words, one out of less than three farms in the United States is worked by a man who does not own it. Some information was made public pub-lic the other day to the effect that 85 per cent of the Press for newspapers of the. London country were supporting sup-porting Governor Landon as against President Roosevelt Roose-velt in this campaign. I do not know the actual percentage and I do not vouch for the figures I have reported to you. But of this I am certain: I believe that Governor Landon does have more editorial support than any presidential nominee nom-inee has had in the last six campaigns, cam-paigns, with the exception of President Pres-ident Roosevelt as a candidate in lng and waving their arms with other propositions to aid the farmer. farm-er. Some of them probably are workable, and if they are workable they must be considered constructive. construc-tive. But the point I am trying to make Is that in the case of either candidate, can-didate, there is still too much of the idea of the superficial, of surface help, for agriculture. In other words, the programs still take into account some circumvention of the law of supply and demand. That statement is not wholly true of Governor Gov-ernor Landon' s farm program, but unless the New Dealers come forward for-ward with more than they have thus far advanced, I think it can be said their program offers nothing noth-ing more than a continued raid on the Treasury of the United States with no plans at all for correcting underlying conditions. There was one phase of Governor Landon's program, as advanced in speeches at Des Moines, Iowa and Minneapolis, Minn, that appealed to me. Brushing aside verbiage and detail, Governor Landon basically has in mind, apparently, a desire to get the government out of the farmer's hair. He seems convinced that there are many things which the farmers would like to do for 1932. It has been interesting to watch the various important independent newspapers as they have studied the two candidates this year and have reached conclusions as to the nominee they will support. I am not now referring to hide-bound Republican Re-publican papers, nor to newspapers that could normally be expected to support the more conservative of the two candidates. I am thinking of independent or distinctly Democratic Dem-ocratic newspapers that have announced an-nounced their opposition to the Roosevelt cause. Let me mention a few of them: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Omaha World Herald, the Baltimore Sun, to mention men-tion only three. There was a great newspaper, one of the greatest, that took a stand for President New York Roosevelt a few Times days ago. I refer re-fer to the New York Times. No one can ever say that the New York Times ever has failed to arrive at its conclusions without giving all factors concerned careful study. I am saying by this . that the New York Times is honest and sincere. But I must say at the same time that the New York Times has a background as an institution in-stitution and it has a clientele of readers for whom it speaks and its accession to the Roosevelt cause is a perfectly natural position for it to take. For years the New York Times has contended that America should participate to a greater extent ex-tent in world affairs. It has contended, con-tended, without exception, for policies poli-cies of an internationalism with which a great many thinking people disagree. Its view, concretely, appears ap-pears to be that we cannot correct depression conditions unless the United States as a nation wholeheartedly whole-heartedly moves in the circle of governments that rule Europe and Asia, especially in matters of an economic character. I do not know what Governor Landon's pronouncements on foreign policy are going to be. But I have observed the policies that have had the backing of the New York Times over a number of years and it seems to me that they result re-sult in greater benefits to a limited rlnss than to the countrv as a whole. themselves and will do for themselves them-selves if the machinery upon which they can operate is made available. He proposes, for example, to seek legislation that will enable the farmers farm-ers to finance themselves through borrowing from commercial agen-, agen-, cies, banks and trust companies, in-I in-I stead of from the government. With that I agree to the fullest. It means simply that farmers again can be masters of their own souls as well as the crops which they grow for it, puts them in a position to sell when they want to sell, without the necessity for asking permission from a bureaucrat in Washington. It means further that no bureaucrat in Washington can issue an order to that farmer that he must dispose of his stored crop. It seems to me as well that anyone any-one who analyzes the present regimentation regi-mentation of the farmers from Washington must recognize that which has always been true: Every time the government, which means politicians, attempts to mess into private business, that private business busi-ness goes from bad to worse and it I am not a rabble rouser; I do not link the New York Times with the money-changers of Wall street as the demagogues describe them. It is just the perspective that I have gained of the whole picture since I have no axes to grind. In the case of those newspapers that have turned against Mr. Roosevelt, Roose-velt, there is to some extent a consideration con-sideration of local interests, circumstances circum-stances of concern to the communities communi-ties which they serve, just as in the case of the New York Times. The point is, however, that in the case of newspapers turning against Mr. Roosevelt, their new positions are predicated op what appears to me to be traditional American bases. That is to say, they are adhering to the principles which I believe to have been the foundation stones of American history. I have no quarrel with the attitude of that school of thought that believes we should engage further in international interna-tional affairs than we have done. It is their conviction and they have a right to it. Yet, it is not mine. I have said may times in these columns that I will support any proposition that is good for America as a whole; I have contended consistently con-sistently for Americanism and the things which that means, and I have argued always for sound government. gov-ernment. Western Newspaper Union. does not matter how bad it was when bureaucrats took hold. It will be worse thereafter. I have been wondering, however, how far Mr. Landon will go in encouragement en-couragement of Hits Root of the family type Farm ProfeJemEarms. You will remember that he spoke at length of family type farms in his Des Moines address. Personally, Person-ally, I feel that he hit upon a very important point. I think it is important im-portant because it strikes at the root of the farm problem. In discussing help for the man who owns or wants to own a small farm. Governor Landon surely is proposing a program that will serve this nation well because no nation whose farms are widely owned by those who operate them can be headed toward fascism or communism. commun-ism. I do not know how the Governor Gov-ernor as President will be able to put the federal government behind such a program, but it is to be assumed that he had definite ideas on the subject or he would not have boldly stated his position. My hope is that it can be done not with government money, but with money supplied from private institutions since there has been too much government gov-ernment competition with business of the nation already. Further, regret- |