Farm Bill

It was fearfully mixed up with politics but two things became apparent: 1) the President was against it; 2) the Senate was for it.

It was a bill by Senator Charles Linza McNary of Oregon designed to meet the objections of President Coolidge and at the same time retain the favor of citizens who think that a thing called the Equalization Fee spells emancipation for Honest John Farmer. Just exactly what Honest John Farmer thinks about it is hard to tell, because he raises such a variety of crops with such various success that his attitude toward national farm relief legislation varies greatly and his many spokesmen often disagree. But the new McNary Bill, not to be confused with the oldtime McNary-Haugen Bill of which this was a 1928 model not yet hyphenated, applied to all farm products except meats, vegetables and fruits. In general, Honest John Farmer could be said to favor it. Hence the politics in Congress.

As passed, the McNary Bill provided:

1) A $400,000,000 Federal fund from which farmers' co-operative marketing associations might borrow at 4%.

2) A Federal Farm Board, composed of the Secretary of Agriculture and a member from each of the twelve U. S. Land Bank districts, appointed by the President. This Board was to administer the loan fund and help co-operative marketing associations to cope with surplus crops.

3) Advisory councils for each farm commodity would be appointed by the Board. These councils would hold a veto power over the Board.

4) Surveys would be made by the Board and its advisors to determine if and when a surplus of any commodity is on hand.

5) To control such a surplus, the Board, through the co-operative marketing associations, would first loan money from the fund to help withhold the crop until domestic demand increased, or to "dump" the surplus abroad. In effect, the Government would thus be a buyer and seller of grain.

6) Then, if the loan fund should be exhausted, the Board would fall back on the Equalization Fee, a levy collected proportionately from all the growers of a surplus crop. The fairness of this scheme has never been questioned, since when a surplus crop occurs, all who have grown the crop have contributed to the surplus and helped drive the price down. The difficulties foreseen are in determining when a surplus exists and in deciding what is a "fair price."

The McNary Bill passed the Senate 53 votes to 23. Only seven Senators from west of the Mississippi voted or paired against it--Borah, Phipps, Shortridge, Warren, Smoot, Walsh, King. Of the Senate's eight Presidential possibilities, the Messrs, Borah, Goff and Walsh were the only ones who stood against what Honest John Farmer is said to want.

At length, the new McNary Bill went from the Senate to the House, there to be wedded, if possible, to a new Haugen Bill and redebated. Many a non-believer in the bill would vote for it, observers guessed, if they felt sure the President was going to use his veto. Then, when the bill goes back to Congress, the opportunists will make sure that the veto is not overridden by a two-thirds vote. Such has been McNary-Haugen history in the past.