EDITORIAL 



Food Prices and the Consumer 



'N THE heat of battle for the city consumer vote 

 there is danger that the farmer may be caught in 

 the political crossfire. The New York Times re- 

 ports that one party has launched a campaign in the cities 

 to emphasize the high cost of food. Blackboards are to 

 be placed in butcher shops and grocery stores, we are told, 

 to set down figures supposed to represent the tax on a 

 pound of meat. The strategy apparently is to insinuate 

 that the processing tax — now discontinued — and the 

 agricultural adjustment program are responsible for the 

 rise in food prices. 



No good citizen will object to a campaign of truth 

 about taxes. There is need today for greater economy in 

 government. There always has been for that matter. But 

 farmers will resent propaganda that results in meat boy- 

 cotts or curtailment of their market outlets. 



The drouth, not acreage adjustment, is largely re- 

 sponsible for the recent advance in food prices . . Mount- 

 ing local, state and federal taxes due to excessive expendi- 

 tures for relief during the past six years is a lesser but 

 important cause. While we're at it, let's not overlook 

 increases in profits to processors, wholesalers and retailers. 



Acreage adjustment in drouth areas makes little or 

 no difference in production totals. When there is a crop 

 failure, a thousand acres add up no more production than 

 five hundred acres. A hundred or a thousand times noth- 

 ing is nothing. In areas where there is a crop, of course, 

 acreage reduction will affect crop totals. 



No political party is going to win farmers support 

 by inflaming the housewife against food prices. No party 

 can prejudice the consumer against a program for main- 

 taining reasonable prices to farmers, and expect the farmer 

 to wink at it. Farm people are distrustful of politicians 

 who make one kind of speech to them, and something 

 entirely different to city audiences. A thorough discussion 

 and a fair, honest presentation of facts about government 

 is a wholesome thing for the country. We hope the 

 campaign now underway will be kept on such a level. 



;. Sxirplus Storage Needed 



' ^NOTHER year of drouth and short crops in 



• jl, the corn belt again emphasizes the wisdom 



/^^l!^ / of developing a surplus storage plan. Many 

 an Iowa farmer today wishes he had some of the 12 cent 

 corn that he burned in the stove only four years ago. 

 Throughout the west central states farmers are faced with 

 the necessity of paying a dollar or more for corn to finish 

 cattle or hogs and maintain their breeding stock. 



How much better for agriculture and the country as 

 a whole had the price-wrecking surpluses of the early 30's 

 been impounded so they could be drawn upon today? 



How many farms and homes would have been saved 

 by their owners had a workable plan been in effect in 1932 

 to maintain parity prices. 



And how thankful would be many a drouth stricken 

 producer at this time could he buy feed and forage at rea- 

 sonable price levels. . , 



The Farm Bureau has aggressively championed the 

 development of a surplus storage plan. Plank two of the 

 platform urged by President Earl C. Smith and others at 

 both major party conventions this year declares that "main- 

 tenance of reasonable surpluses of basic farm crops is not 

 only desirable but necessary for the protection of the Amer- 

 ican consumer in times of stress, drouth, or other disasters. 

 Therefore, we ask for a system of commodity loans for 

 carrying such seasonal surpluses apart from market chan- 

 nels so as to remove their otherwise burdensome influence 

 upon the price levels of these products. " 



Attorney General Upholds Relief Bills 



y^N A RECENT opinion, Attorney General Otto 

 Vl Kerner sustained the validity of the Hickman- 

 K^ Lantz-Finn pauper relief bills which were spon- 

 sored by the Illinois Agricultural Association. In his 

 opinion the tax warrants issued against levies made under 

 the authority of this law are valid. The opinion concludes: 

 "Therefore, having carefully considered all the statutes 

 relative to the question and having surveyed the situation in 

 the entire state, I believe such tax anticipation warrants are 

 legal, should be entirely saleable, and the proceeds made 

 available for those of the human family in destitute and neces- 

 sitous circumstances." 



The opinion was rendered to the States Attorney of 

 LaSalle county August 19, 1936. A Qiicago law firm had 

 raised certain questions concerning this legislation, particu- 

 larly the power of the state to require local governments 

 to levy a 30-cent relief tax before they were eligible to 

 participate in state funds. In considering this question, the 

 Attorney General said: 



"There can be no question but that the legislature had 

 the power to impose upon the governmental units now bur- 

 dened with pauper relief, the entire cost of furnishing food, 

 fuel, clothing, shelter, medical attention «nd burial for the 

 poor and indigent persons qualifying for same. Knowing, 

 however, such burden to be too great and the state intending 

 to help qualifying local governmental units, the General As- 

 sembly in its wisdom fixed the above maximum tax at three 

 mills on the dollar, requiring that such tax be levied, if 

 needed, and if levied and still insufficient, then state aid would 

 be allocated to the local governmental unit charged by law 

 with the duty of providing pauper relief and support. . . The 

 General Assembly, in my opinion, has the power and author- 

 ity to impose upon these local governmental units which are 

 its creatures, the above requirements to qualify for state aid " 



The Attorney General pointed out that such a require- 

 ment is not new in Illinois law; that it has long been a 

 requirement that no apportionment of the state school fimd 

 shall be made to any school district unless such school 

 district 



"levies for educational purposes at least the maximum 

 rate allowed by law (without referendum). This statute has 

 never been questioned in this particular respect, that I can find, 

 and as I see it, is entirely analogous to the instant pauper 

 relief laws." 



This well-considered opinion completely answers the 

 legal questions raised in regard to the poor relief bills. It 

 should facilitate the sale of tax anticipation warrants is- 

 sued against tax levies made under the authority of this 

 legislation thereby making relief funds available and ex- 

 pediting the return of relief expenditures to local responsi- 

 bility and local control. 



L A. A. RECORD 



