i- 



EDITORIAL 



Control and Recovery 



"The greater the control over price levels by govern- 

 ment, by corporations and by labor unions the slower the 

 pickup and getaway of business in recovery." — Harper 

 Leech, columnist in the Chicago Daily News. 

 ^^^V^ HE RECORD has been hammering away on this 

 ^—^ point as the most vital influence barring the path to 

 ^^_y prosperity, for many years. Therefore, it is en- 

 couraging to see the problem given recognition in a publica- 

 tion so closely allied to the business and industrial interests 

 of a metropolitan area. The only way we would change 

 Mr. Leech's statement would be to put corporations and 

 labor unions first and government last. For corporations 

 and organized labor initiated the policy of controlling and 

 limiting production long before government intervened at 

 the insistence of farmers and others in the interest of fair 

 play. 



The disparity between agriculture and industry that 

 existed throughout the twenties, that widened in the early 

 thirties, and that continues yet today is proof that we have 

 not yet solved the problem of equalizing commodity values 

 and wage rates without which widespread unemployment 

 will continue indefinitely. 



Until the rigid price and wage levels of industry and 

 labor show signs of softening so as to conform more nearly 

 to the low levels of 40 cent corn, $1.00 milk, 22 cent but- 

 terfat, and 55 cent wheat, farmers have no other choice 

 than to tighten up on their production, and exercise every 

 means within their power to raise farm prices. 



AAA Marketing Quota Upheld 



C'^^ HE United States Supreme Court on April 17 by a 



^»— ^6 to 2 decision upheld the Agricultural Adjustment 



^1 Act of 1938 with its marketing quota provision. 



In Its opinion the court as quoted in the New York Times 



said: 



"This court has recently declared that sales of to- 

 bacco by growers through warehousemen to purchasers 

 for removal outside the state constitute interstate com- 

 merce. Any rule, such as that embodied in the Act 

 (AAA), which is intended to foster, protect and con- 

 serve that commerce, or to prevent the flow of commerce 

 from working harm to the people of the nation, is within 

 the competence of Congress. 



"Within these limits the exercise of the power, the 

 grant being unlimited in its terms, may lawfully extend 

 to the absolute prohibition of such commerce, and a 

 fortiori to limitation of the amount of a given commodity 

 which may be transported in such commerce. The motive 

 of congress in exerting the power is irrelevant to the 

 validity of the legislation. 



"The provisions of the Act under review constitute 

 a regulation of interstate and foreign commerce within 

 the competency of Congress under the power delegated 

 to it by the Constitution." 



The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Owen 



Roberts who also read the court's 6 to 3 decision in January, 



1936, declaring the earlier adjustment act unconstitutional. 



Justices Butler and McReynolds dissented holding that the 



motive of the Act was to control agricultural production, 

 therefore, unconstitutional. 



This decision is undoubtedly one of the most im- 

 portant incidents affecting the long-time interests of Amer- 

 ican farmers, of recent years. In a measure it marks the 

 successful culmination of the long, hard struggle of or- 

 ganized farmers to control price-wrecking crop surpluses. 

 It means that farmers who refuse to cooperate with their 

 neighbors in adjusting production are required to withhold 

 their share of the surplus, when two-thirds of the producers 

 in a referendum vote so declare, or suffer a penalty (15c 

 a bu. in the case of com) for every unit marketed in excess 

 of their quota. In other words, the court indirectly as- 

 serted that congress had the power to penalize the sale of 

 crop surpluses that destroy fair price levels and thus injure 

 the interests of all producers and the public. 



This decision marks another advance step in the ef- 

 forts of civilization to restrain persons whose acts injure 

 others. The need for maintaining farm price levels in 

 equitable balance with the prices of non-agricultural goods 

 and services is no longer a question for debate. It is ac- 

 cepted by all informed persons as a concomitant of trade, 

 employment, and prosperity. To the extent that the market- 

 ing quota contributes to the prevention of ruinous farm 

 prices will it become increasingly valuable as a piece of 

 legislation for the benefit of the entire nation. 



The Demand For State Milk Control 



^*^^ HE united stand of Illinois fluid milk producers 

 ^— ^for state minimum price legislation is the natural 

 ^^ response of dairy farmers to the price and wage 

 fixing of corporate enterprise, labor unions and trade as- 

 sociations. 



The farmers' costs of producing milk have steadily 

 increased. In several large milk sheds, new and stringent 

 sanitary ordinances have demanded elaborate milk houses 

 equipped with expensive hot water heaters, milk coolers 

 and other appliances. Bams have had to be remodeled or 

 new ones buill to conform to the new codes. Add to this 

 the fact that profits of the big dairy distributing corporations 

 have been substantially maintained; that the high wage de- 

 mands of organized wagon drivers and plant employees are 

 taken out of the farmers' pay check in periods of depression 

 and you have an intolerable situation for producers. 



This is the reason the milk producer is in Springfield 

 today. It is the reason he is demanding some minimum 

 price protection. When the distributor's margin of profit 

 is threatened the path of least resistance is to take it out 

 of the producer rather than cut wages and risk labor 

 troubles, or develop processing and distributing economies. 



The ideal situation, of course, would be to have no 

 controls of any kind, to let free and open competition for 

 markets, for jobs and for the consumers' trade regulate 

 prices all along the line. But there is no such thing as 

 free and open competition on the larger organized milk 

 markets today. The distributors and organized labor have 

 been content to pass all the free and open competition 

 along to the farmer. So milk producers say, "it's time for 

 a little reciprocity, time to put a bottom under our prices 

 and thus pave the way for lower cost distribution. 



L A. A. RECORD 



