portioning funds among the states was 

 a controversial question. The Senate 

 and House bills diflfered on the question. 

 The method outlined in the Senate bill 

 was substantially adopted. The dairy 

 states are fearful lest they be discrimi- 

 nated against in apportioning funds be- 

 cause in dairy farming there is a rela- 

 tively large acreage of pasture and mea- 

 dow to cultivated crops. Dairy interests, 

 likewise, contended that they would be 

 subjected to greater competition if the 

 acreage in legumes and grasses is in- 

 creased throughout the country. An 

 amendment was finally adopted on this 

 point providing that the Secretary shall 

 in every practical way provide for soil- 

 conserving end soil rebuilding practices 

 rather than the growing of soil-depleting 

 commercial crops. 



What Court Said 



In supporting the constitutionality of 

 the measure in the House debate. Rep- 

 resentative Coo'.ey of North Carolina 

 said: "Now let us consider a few state- 

 ments in the Supreme Court decision on 

 the AAA case. What d'd the Court mean 

 by the following language? 



'We are not here concerned with a 

 conditional appropriation of money, nor 

 with a provision that if certain con- 

 ditions are not complied with the ap- 

 propriation shall no l-^nger be avail- 

 able. By the Agricultural Adjustment 

 Act the amount of the tax is appro- 

 priated to be expended only in payment 

 under contracts whereby the parties bind 

 themselves to regulation by the Fsderal 

 Government. There is an obvious differ- 

 ence between a statute stating the con- 

 ditions upon which moneys shall be ex- 

 pended and one effective only upon as- 

 sumption of a contractual obligation to 

 submit to a regulation which otherwise 

 could not be enforced.' 



"What did the Court mean by the fol- 

 lowing language, none of which is in any 

 way necessary or pertinent to the de- 

 cision? 



'We are not now required to ascertain 

 the scope of the phrase (general wel- 

 fare of the United States) or to de- 

 termine whether an ap-ropriation in 

 aid of agriculture falls within it.' 



Interprets Meaning 



"Is it not clear," said Rep. Cooley, 

 "that the Court intended to suggest that 

 under the general-welfare clause of the 

 Federal Constitution we could make 

 grants of federal funds in aid of agricul- 

 ture? 



"Is it not clear that the Court intended 

 to suggest that we could, in the ab- 

 sence of contracts binding upon farmers, 

 make conditional appropriations with 

 provision that if certain conditions are 

 not complied with the appropriation 

 shall no longer be available? 



"Does not this bill seek to use the 

 power of the general -welfare clause of 

 the Constitution ? Does it not make con- 



ditional appropriations of money, with 

 provisions that if the conditions are not 

 complied with the appropriation will no 

 longer be available?" 



Proponents of the legislation in the 

 debate on the floor of the House read 

 letters and telegrams from President 

 Edward A. O'Neal of the American 

 Farm Bureau Federation, President Earl 

 C. Smith of the lAA, President George 

 N. Putnam of the New Hampshire Farm 

 Bureau Federation and others. Rep. 

 Scott Lucas of the 20th Illinois district 

 spoke for the bill in which he read a 

 telegram from President Smith urging 

 his active support of the legislation. Mr. 

 Lucas also presented a resolution from 

 eight Democratic and eight Republican 

 farmers of Menard county, Illinois, with- 

 in his district in which they expressed 

 "unreserved faith and confidence in the 

 leadership of the Illinois Agricultural 

 .■\s.oociation and the American Farm Bu- 

 reau Federation" and asked Congress to 

 enact legislation to meet the situation 

 created by invalidation of the Agricul- 

 tural Adjustment Act. "If, in their opin- 

 ion," said the resolution, "such legisla- 

 tion is not passed under the Constitution, 

 we ask that such an amendment to the 

 Constitution be submitted to the people 

 as will make it possible to legally protect 

 the agricultural industry of this 

 country." 



Above Partisanship 



"The most significant and forceful part 

 of these resolutions," said Mr. Lucas, "is 

 the fact that men are willing to get to- 

 gether on an agricultural policy which 

 is high above the plateau of partisan 

 politics. It is a declaration of firmness 

 and candor by men who belong to both 

 major political parties but who are will- 

 ing to submerge party regularity for a 

 principle which means everything to 

 them." 



Answering the criticism from the dairy 

 states, Rep. Kleberg of Texas, operator 

 of perhaps the largest ranch in the 

 United States, said: "One of the out- 

 standing lessons to be learned with ref- 

 erence to dairy production as well as 

 beef production is that dairy products 

 as well as beef poundage increases at all 

 times when the prices of dairy feed or 

 cattle feed are low. My distinguished 

 young friend (Rep. Boileau of Wiscon- 

 sin) forgets that with reference to beef 

 cattle 50 per cent more weight can be 

 put on a steer by feeding him corn than 

 by feeding him for the same period on 

 grass. 



Cheap Feed — More Milk 



"Secretary Wallace, if my memory 

 serves me, testified before the Commit- 

 tee that the prices of feed grains or 

 other high protein or milk producing 

 feeds affect the poundage in dairy pro- 



duction upward or downward, higher 

 production when feed cost is low and 

 lower production as feed costs rise 

 higher." 



Throughout the debate the measure 

 was supported or opposed on a non- 

 partisan basis. Rep. Hope of Kansas, a 

 Republican, delivered one of the most 

 effective speeches for the bill. He quoted 

 from his party platform of 19.32 as fol- 

 lows: 



"The fundamental problem of Amer- 

 ican agriculture is the control of pro- 

 duction to such volume as will balance 

 supply with demand. In the solution of 

 this problem the .co-operative organiza- 

 tion of farmers to plan production, and 

 the tariff to hold the home market for 

 American farmers are vital elements. 

 A third element equally as vital is the 

 contril of acreage und;r cultivation as 

 an aid to the efforts of the farmer to 

 balance produc'ion. . . . We will support 

 any plan which will help to balance pro- 

 duction against demand and thereby 

 raise agricultural prices, provided it is 

 economically sound and administratively 

 workable without burdensome bureau- 



cracy. 



What Platform Said 



"The Democratic Party's platform," 

 said Hope, "contained this language : 'We 

 condemn the extravagance of the Farm 

 Board, its disastrous action which made 

 the government a speculator of farm 

 products and the unsound policies of 

 restricting agricultural production to 

 the demands of domestic markets.' 



"The Democratic platform also con- 

 tained the following language under the 

 I'st of policies favored by the party: 

 'Extension and development of farm co- 

 operative movement and effective control 

 of crop surpluses so that our farmers 

 may have the full benefit of the domestic 

 market. The enactment of every constitu- 

 tional measure that will ad the farmers 

 to receive for their basic farm commod- 

 ities prices in excess of cost.' 



"Even a casual glance at the planks 

 in the two platforms will disclose that 

 the Republican theory was one of reduc- 

 ing and controlling production, while 

 the Democratic theory was opposed to 

 the control of and reduction in produc- 

 tion, and favored some efforts to control 

 crop surpluses after they were produced. 



Economic Legislation 



"What happened is enough to give a 

 good laugh to anyone who is interested 

 in the humor of politics. The Democratic 

 party won the election. It in effect 

 adopted the policy of controlling produc- 

 tion so as to balance supply and demand 

 as expressed in the Republican plat- 

 form." 



Congressman Hone pointed out that 



there are many things which can be 



said against the bill. "There are basic 



and fundamental arguments which can 



(Continued on page 27) 



V ■; I. A. A. RECORD 



