THE ECONOMIC PROTEST 225 



of members from other sections of the country who 

 were opposed to the subsidy feature of the measure. 



The press comment on the defeat of these bills is 

 a fairly accurate expression of popular sentiment. 

 The Kansas City Star, which is read widely through- 

 out a section where farm discontent has been most 

 in evidence, discusses this subject editorially under 

 the title "Inviting a Farm Revolt." After directing 

 attention to the fact that the failure of Congress 

 to pass a farm relief measure does not settle the 

 issue, the editorial proceeds to raise this question: 

 "Does Washington want a farm revolt on its hands 

 as it had in the old Populist days? It is inviting 

 such a revolt if it refuses to recognize the farmers' 

 relief interests." 



"There is but one thing that Congress could do," 

 says the Dallas News editorially, in commenting on 

 the defeat of this legislation, "which would assured- 

 ly contribute to the betterment of the agricultural 

 industry that all men desire. It could reduce the 

 rates of the most highly protective tariff measures 

 this country has ever known. One effect of this 

 would be to enhance the purchasing power of the 

 products of the farm. Another would be to make 

 foreign markets more absorptive of our farm pro- 

 ducts. For it is with their own manufactured pro- 

 ducts that most foreign peoples must buy of the 

 United States, particularly European people." 



Mark Sullivan, in a syndicated article, expressed 

 a similar view. "The cornbelt proposal," he says, 



