778 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



them dairy cattle. Now we have 5}^ milhon more beef than dairy- 

 cattle. And the number of beef cattle is ap;ain increasing. From 

 wartime emergency demands we expected a reduction. We had it. 

 We expect some further reduction in effective demand and we are 

 attempting to adjust ourselves to such changes. 



It is obvious that, insofar as the beef -cattle industry is concerned, 

 the proposed phm is unneeded. 



IV. FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIONS 



We ranch people do not like the basic philosophy of the proposed 

 plan. 



We do not beheve in hand-outs, call them subsidies or "production 

 payments" or anything you like. We believe that we, as a part of 

 the citizenship of this Nation, should do our full part toward support- 

 ing our Government. We do not expect the Government to support 

 us. 



Our fathers built our industry on the American principle of free 

 enterprise and independence of thought and action. We can imagine 

 the graphic language that would have been used by one of our trail- 

 driving ancestors to a proposal of a subsidy by the Government. 

 And we can imagine what would have happened to some "economist" 

 who would have had the temerity to tell an old cowman that the 

 Government, or in particular the Secretary of Agriculture, would tell 

 him how many cattle he could raise, or how many he could sell or 

 where or when he had to sell them. And the character of the cow- 

 man has not changed. 



And that is what the Brannan plan means. Perhaps not just yet, 

 but it is the beginning of complete, unqualified, and absolutely con- 

 trolled economy. This is strong language, but this conclusion is 

 logical when you study that plan. 



The plan now calls for immediate unlimited production with sup- 

 port prices applicable to only a part of such production. But the 

 Secretary asks for authority to impose production controls and mar- 

 keting quotas, either or both, as he may see fit. Imposition of the 

 subsidy plan necessarily involves such controls. The Secretary has 

 so stated and some members of the committee have agreed to this 

 proposition. It is said that no one wants to impose complete con- 

 trols — that producers should have faith in their officials and in their 

 Government. Perhaps the present or even the next set of officials 

 might not want to exercise this system of complete controls if given 

 the opportunity, but some day there will come on the scene an indi- 

 vidual who would not waste his given opportunity. And we do not 

 want to give to anyone that opportunity. I am reminded of a state- 

 ment made by Thomas Jefferson, the philosophy of which is applic- 

 able to the proposed plan. He said — 



Free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy 

 and not confidence that prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom 

 we are obliged to trust with power. 



We may sound old-fashioned, but we still believe in the philosophy 

 of Jefferson and we know no person in whom we have such confidence 

 that we would entrust him with the power now requested by the 

 Secretary of Agriculture. 



