NEW DEAL: LATER STAGES 53 



ated terms over the decision. It was unbelievable that the agency that 

 had been greatly responsible for raising farm income, the most important 

 link in the chain for "economic equality," had been banned. Certainly 

 the farmers had constitutional rights. If the Constitution in its existent 

 form made it impossible for all groups to enjoy economic equality, steps 

 had to be taken to amend it "so that the rights of all groups and of all 

 citizens will no longer be jeopardized." William Green, the president of 

 the American Federation of Labor, expressed regret over the unhappy 

 turn of events, saying: "We had very sincerely hoped that the AAA 

 would be sustained." 2 Within a week wheat prices had begun a down- 

 ward move. 3 



No such regrets were voiced in the New England states. Spokesmen 

 for that area said that the farmers and industries there had benefited little, 

 if any, from the A.A.A. and were glad to see it go. The textile industry, 

 operating on a narrow margin of profit, led the campaign against it after 

 the fashion of a New England crusade. The most immediate effect that 

 the decision was expected to have there was to bring about the return 

 of some $12,000,000 in processing taxes that New England mills had been 

 paying with protest since May i. 



The evidence is that the administration, despite its outward laments, 

 was hardly unprepared for an adverse decision. Several days before the 

 court decision, C. C. Davis, the A.A.A. administrator, had suggested the 

 formation of forty-eight "little A.A.A.'s," under federal supervision, to 

 administer the program in the event the court had decided against the 

 act. Others, equally prepared for a reversal, felt that enough salvageable 

 parts of the measure would be left to enable the administration to build 

 a new structure. 4 



The court action put the administration in the same embarrassing posi- 

 tion that it had been in when the N.R.A. was outlawed; again it was 

 compelled either to give up its objective of economic planning or else to 

 find a substitute. There was, however, one major difference between 

 N.R.A. and the A.A.A. that cannot be overlooked. There was no demand 

 from any source to revive N.R.A., except for a few in the administration 



2. Ibid., January 7, 1936. 



3. Minneapolis Journal, January 12, 1936. 



4. New Yor^ Times, January 12, 1936. 



