Evening Star Newspaper, February 25, 1927, Page 4

JURY:GETS BUSCH CASELATE TODAY Horning Asks Verdiet of First-Degree Murder Against Eagles. One of the longest murder trials in _(Continued from First Page) | mestic consumption on_the other. would mean an increased exportable surplus to be dumped on the world market. This in turn, would mean « constantly decreasing world price | until the peint was reached where | the world price was sufficientiy low so the history of the District of Columbia will come. to #n end this afternoon whén a juty in Criminal Division 2 will receive the casé of four defend Anig charged with the rder of "ol:«*man f.eo: W. K. Busch from Jusgice William Hitz: Assistant United States Attorney George . Horning, jr., this afterndon is closing his argmént of summation which wad bégun shortly hefore the Iuncheon recess and after counsel for lohn Proctor, . Nicholas lee Eagles and John ¥. MeCabe had summed up thefr cases. Counsel for Samuel Moreno. the Tourth defendant, pre sénted his closing argument yesterd afternoon. lames Archer, Proctor's attorney, #eked for verdief of hot guilty on the ground’that no ofe has placed a revolver in_ Proctor's hands. He broadly intimated that Policeman ¥Frank L. Ach shot his colleague, Officer Busch, explaining that although Ach declared he fived at a man in a raincoat, the only coat produced in court bearing any bullet holes be- longed to Busch Claims Self-Defense. Louis Tannenbaum. Kagles' attor nev, plead for an @cquittal on the gronud that his client fired in self defense. and James A. O'Shea. counsel for McCabe, told the jury that a ver. dict of not guilty should he rendered ause his client had no gun and no motive to resist the officers. Even with an acquittal, O'Shea declared, that would not clear away the cloud over McCabe's life, “of having spent nearly five months in jail where he hae no right to be. Horning launched into his argument with a scathing attack on the defend- ants. declaring that not one admitted firing in the direction of Officer Busch. e said. however, that the jury could not expect “brigands. bandits, liars and perjurers’ to admit firing on that policeman, Horning analyzed the evi- Aence minutely, pointing to dis- crepances among the various defend- ants’ testimony and comparing these with statements by Government wit- nesses. While directing his attack at a1l four d-fendants the prosecufor ap- peared 1o be more lenient with Mc- Cabe Says Eagles Wore Coat. He pointed to MeCabe's testimony @8 a complete co-operation of every- 1hing Ach said about the positions of 1he four men and two officers as ihey walked east on Upshur street. He had not teachad the details of the shooting when recess for lunchéon was called. but just hefore that hait in the procesdings Horning declared: The man who fired the first sfiot fs guilty of murdér in the first des gree. e fired before either officer had a chance to pull out a gun. Who was he? Ach raid he was the man in the raincoat: Proctor saye he was the man in ths raincoat. and McCabe #Avs he was the man in the raincoat.” Horning contended the mah in the raincoat was Bagles, and - then told the jury “it wou'd be a vielation of Your conscien¢e'and contrary to the evidencs to bring in a verdict for this an other than first degree murder. MeCabe naid at the time of his arvest that if either officer dfed those three men should be hung. If that's his why “should yon have any Archer Attacks Prosecution. Archer attacked the Government for oing to Eagles “to put the bug on roctor,” declaring it was “humiliat- ing And degrading.” “We all know there is an neesed electric chair In the jail Archer. ring » unhar- said “Speaking of visions (réfer- to Kagies' statement that he had ion which brought about a change 1n his testimon what would you think if that vision hadn't appeared until after MeCabe had been executed? T don’t intend to discuss his evidence hacause 1 am confident you will pay o attention to anything he said.” Ach, the attorney continued, eén- Aeavored to tell the truth, but he said he fired five shots at the man in the raincoat We flud three holes in Rusch's coat and none In the slicker,” daclared Archer “Three weeks before Eagles came to Washington he wis a New York gun- man with a criminal record,” Archer continued, and this drew an obpection from Tannenbaum, who declared his client was “n6t a’ gunman.’ then withdrew the chary 0 man has put a revolver in Proctor’'s hands, he said, and added: ““Proctor must be shown to have shot Busch, or if some- hody else did, he must be shown to haev connived with that person before A verdict of guilty can be brought in against him Tannenbaum Opens Argument. “It's asking too much of a jury, roncluded Archer, “to have it come in and swear that Proctor shot Busch when Ach admits he emptied his re- velver at the man in the raincoat and when the only raincoat produced here with any bullet holes in it is Mr. RBusch's Tannenbaum followed Archer in his closing argument. He declared at the outset that “Eagiés stands before you day as innocent of the charge of urder as 1 do.” His clent's second yersion of the shdoting ‘“‘rings true,” Tannenbaum said. He denounced | “aneers at the vision of KEagles' mother.” telling the jury “vou know the influence of a mother’s vision.” Moreno, and not Eagles, wore the raincoat, Tannenbaum sald, explain- Ing at the same time that the identity | of the man in the slicker is an im- portant element in the case. He eon- rluded his argument with the state- ment that Eaglee “shot in self- Aefense” and that he was the victim of an “illegal arrest.” The fact that A felony was committed in Maryland i* no probable cause for arrest, he maid O'Shea told the jury that Assistant T'nited States Attorney James J. leary, who opened for the Govern ment vesterdav, and the other three dafendants had exonerated McCabe of the shooting. “O'Leary told you yes- 1arday to acquit this’ man,” he de- vlared. but was interrupted by Jus. tiee Hitz, who said he didn't hear O Lear v that. O'Shea explained that was the impression he received, #nd then declared the only thing Mec- Wbe is guilty of in this case is that he was under the influence of liquor. ""This case is stranger than fiction,” rontinued the attorney. “Would you Think thst a man could get implicated tn «uch a situation?” Taking up the evidence in the case, O'Shea said if Ach I8 mistaken about “agles not having worn the raincoat, 1#n “he can have been very well mis- taken about McCabe participating in this affair.’ Declaring Mc(abe had no gun, no 1001. no purpose in the shooting and no motive to resist arrest, O'Shea pleaded for a verdict of not guilty, but added even that could not clear away the cloud of having spent nearly five months in jall “where he had no right i of disrupting the long-established and ihat. even, though increased by our ariff d:tieS, commodities would How mto this country in large quantities. | “A board of 12 men are pranted almost unlimited control of the agri cultural industry and cannot only fis | the price which the produce:s of five | commodities shall recelve for their | &ouds, but can alse fix the price which the consumers of country | shall pay for these commodities. board is expected to ebtain h prices for the Ameri farmer by removing the mirplué from the home market and dumping it abroad at a belot-cost price. To do this board i§ given the authority by plication 1o fix the demestic pric level, either by means of contiacts | which it may make with processors | or co-operatives, or by providine fo the " the purchase of the commodities In such quantities as will bring the | prices up to the point which the | board may fix cept as it may be restrained by fear of foreign importations, the farm | board, composed of representatives of | producers, is glven thespower to fix the prices of these neecessitios of life at any point it sees fit. The law fixes | no standards. inposes no restrictions | and requires no regulation of any kind. | There could be no appeal from the ar- | bitrary decision of these men. who would be under constant pressure from | their constituents to push prices as | high as possible. To expect modera- | tion under these circumstances is to| disregard experience and credit human nature with qualities it does not pos sess. It i not so long since the Qov- | ernment was spending vast sums and | through the Department of Justice ex- | erting every effort to b up combi- nations that were raising the cost of living to & point conceived to he exces- sive. . Would Increase Pgices. | his bill if it accomplishes its Mn- | nose, will raise the price of the spec fied ‘agricultural commodities to the highest possible point, and in doing so the board will operate without any fe- straints imposed by the anti-trust laws. The granting of any such arbitrary power to a Government hoard is to run «Lounter to our traditions, fthe philosophy of our Government. ‘the | spirit of our institutions and all prin- | ciples of équity. 1 “The administrative difficulties in-| volved are sufficient to wreck the plan. | No matter how simple an economic conception may be, its application on a large scale in the modern world is at- tended by infinite complexities and difficulties. The principle underlying this bill, whether fallacious or not. is | simple and easy to state, but no one has outlined in definite and detailed termis how the principle is to be car- vied out in practice. MHow can the board bé expécted to caFry out afier the enactment of the law what cannot even e described prior to its passage? In the meanwhile, existing channels and methods of distribution and mar- keting must be seriously dislocated. Equalization Fee Problem. “This is even more apparent when o take into consideration the prob- lem of administering the. collection of the equalization fee, “The bureau states that the fee will have to be col- lected either from the processofs-or the transportation companies, and dis. misses as fmpracticable collections at the point of sale. In the case of trans- portation companies, it ‘points‘out the enormous difficulties of collecting the fee in view of the possibility of ship. ping commodities by unregistered ve hicles. In so far as processors #re concerned, it estimates the number at 6.632, without considering the number of factories engaged in the business of canning corn or manufacturing food products other, than millers. Some conception of the magnitude of the task may be had when we consider that if the wheat, the corn and- the cotton crop# had beén under operation in the year 1925, collection would have been required from an ageregate of 16.034,466,079 tinits. The bureau states that it will be impossible to collect the equalization fee in full. - “No Constructive Suggestion.” “The bill will not succeed in provid- ing a practical method of controlling the agricultural surplus, which lies at the heart of the whole problem. In the matter of controlling outplit the farmer is at a disadvantage as com- pared with the manufacturer. The latter is better able to gauge his mar- ket, and in the face of falling prices can reduce production. The farmer, on the other hand, must operafe over a longeér périod of time in producing his crops and is Subject to weather conditions and disturbances in world markets which can never be known in advance. In trying to find a solution for this fundsmental problem of the surplus, the present bill offers no con- structive suggestion. It seeks merely to increase the prices paid by the con: sumer, with the inevitable result of stimulagyng production on the part of the farmer and decreasing consump- tion on the part of the public. It ignores the fact that production is curbed only by decreased, mnot in- creased, prices. In the end the equalization fee and the entire mi chinery provided by the bill under consideraition will merely aggravate conditions which are the cause of the 's present distress. 'a'"{'eer “must be careful In trying to help the farmer not to jeopardize the whole agricultural industry by sub- jeating it to the tyranny of bmucr_aflc regulation and control. That is what the present bill will do. But, aside from all this, no man can foresee what the effect on our economic life will be icately adjusted channels of com- 3::7»:“ "rhaq’u will be far-reaching is undeniable, nor is it beyond the range of possibility that the present bill, if enacted into law, will threaten the verv basis of our national prosperity, through dislocation, the slowing up of industry, and.the disruption of the farmer's home market, which absorbs 90 per cent of his products. “Guaranty of Profits.” “W he iimited number of farm © ov;:e';:n:n with whom contracts may be made for surplus disposal and the fact that farm co-operatives are not likely to be engaged in meat pack- fng, flour milling, or cotton spinning, it appears certain that the largest part of these contracts must be made be- tween the board and the processors and other agencies. “It means that' the whole contract in swine, for instance, must be car- ried out with the meat packers; that a large part of wheat operations must be carried out with flour miller: wheat_exporters and others. Tt means that any establishment which has such a contract can charge what it likes to our American consumers be- cause it can place the loss from any product unsalable at home on the farmer or the Government by dump- ing it abroad. In actual working this is a complete guaranty of the profits of these concerns without restrali or limitation on profiteering against American consumers, of which the farmer himself is a'very large ele- 10 h O'Shea concluded his argument with o defense of Kagles, decluring that de- endant to have been “most unmerci ully lambasted” In this case. The attorney explained he arose to Eagles’ Jdefense because he sought to help an * man whom he had ment. It is mot a guaranty to the farmer. ‘The implications of this were pointed out in significant r marks in the minority report of the liouse: committee on agriculture, which merits fuller attention than jt | of of its wide ecirculation in the farming communities of the country, can be only because the proponents of the bill are unwill- ing that the farmers of the Nation shall iearn that it is proposed that the equalization fee principle shaii he utihzed to as-ure in view ers what they have na to gain for themselves profit from every vear's oper "he proporents of the bill at the hearines conceded that it could not - as 1o animals except undei iact with the packers It ally follows that no packer jout a contract could onernta with the hoard. ‘The bill nowhere protects the independent packer. It does provide that there hall he no discrimination hetween cooperntive associations, 1t con tains no like provisions as to processors, Sees No Gain to Farmers, “The bill would impose the burden of ite support to « Inrge degree upon farmers who wonld not benefit by it The products embraced in the plan swre only about ane-third of the total American farm production. ‘Fhe tarmers who grow (hese commodities are themselves large consumers of them. and every farmer consumes some of them. ‘Fhere are seversl mil- lion farmers who do not produce an, the designated products, or ver, little of them. and they must pay the premiums upon the products deslg nated in the bill. In some commod. ities such as corn and mill feed the farmers are j ctically the sole con sumers. “It I8 proposed to increase the price of corn and mill feed to Anmietican farmers, and therefore the coste to the dairy and cattle feeding industries whose products are omitted from the bill Beyond thi: it means that by dumping of American feeds abroad at lower prices than those charged under this plan to the American swine. cat. tle and dairy farmer, we should he di- rectly subsidizing forelgn production of pork. dairy, beef and other anfmal products in competition with our own farmers in the markets of the world “hall_send cheap cotton abroad 11 high cotton at home. he effect of this plan wi con- {nuously to stimulate Ameticas duction and to pile up increasing Sur- | Pluses beyvond the world demand. We are already overproducing. It h, 3 . It has been claimed that the plan would only be used in the emergency of occasional irplus, which unduly depresses the price. No such limitations are placed in thé bill. But, on the other hand, the definition of surplus is the “‘sur- vlus over domestic requireménts,” and, as we have had such a surplus in most of the commodities covered in the bill for 50 vears. and will have for yedrs to come, it means continuous action, Effect of Fes System. “It is;%aid that by the automatic in- crease of the equalization fee to meet the increasing losses on enlarged cumping of increasing sufplus there would he restraint on produc- tion. This can prove effective only after so great an increase in produc- tion as will greatly enlfrge our ex- ports on all the commodities except cotton. With such increased surpluses dumped from the United States on to foreign markets the world prices will be broken down, and with them Amer- ican prices, upon which the premium is based, will likewise be lowered to the point. of ocomplete disaster to | the method of collection and disposi | tion of these great sums of money to be determine% | out any effective el | the Kxecutive or Congi | tiun of powers under which our form of Government cannot continu | o time limit is placed up | contritets which the board ma Such contraicts might caslly be for tarm of ties. as “for examp! present time. must | considerable p n the a otton the arily at be for i cannot be disposed of in oa single | venr. During the cont'nusnce of any such contract, the equalization fee ust continue to be levied unless the whole burden of continuing opera ton i to be borne by the producers of the first crop. Consequently t suggastion often made (hat the scheme should be tried. and if it fails be re penled. loses afl force. This sugsges tion s faulty in another respect nameély, that failure would be demon strated oniy by the accumulation of a huge surplus in storage. tinuance of operations, while a vast supply remainad in storage, would re sult in 4 prolonged depression of price Fails to Restrict Contracts. “While the blll authorizes an a priation of $250,000,000. it falls t strict the contracts of the board with in (hai sum and nowhere denies the liability of the United States for addi tional ‘sums of money. If the board had begun operating in the 1925 cot ton erop when prices were around 20 cents & pound and had then attempted to hold up the price on the 1926 crop at a level which induced the picking of the whole crop, the whole $250,000. 000 would have been spent and great commitments bevond that figure have been entered into. 'The allocation of $100,000.000 1o cotton In last vear's Dbill. plus the suggested fee of $5 a bale, would have heen completely ex hausted long hefore the 1926 crop came into the market.™ and, if the equalization fse should prove uncon stitutional or otherwise uncollectible the Treasury would have been com mitted by contracts to a liability to the extent of the whole revolving fund. “Apart from the necessity of con tracting with the packers, the bill con fers upon the board unlimited power a8 to the nature, extent and duration of contracts with other processors. It does not éven enjoin an absence of “‘unreasonable” didcrimination be- tween them, although it does prohibit “‘unreasonable” discriminhtion be- tween co-operatives, The board would thereforé possess an absolute power of life and death over many legitimate business® organizations, since none could compete against a processor en- joying a contract with the board pro- tecting it against lose. ‘The board could go uniimitedly into processing for its own account, if it so desired. No such unrestricted powers have ever been conferred upon any board. “The insurance proposal afioufits to a straight Government agreement to pay to the co-operative associations ppro e holding commodities from the market, no matter how high the price may go in the meantime. For example, a wheat co-operative may, in a year of shortage, take wheat from a member on a day when it is selling at $2.50 a bushel. Under this bill it may decide to hold it for $3. but be insured that if the market breaks the Government will pay it the difference between $2.50 American farmers. It I8 impossible to see how this bill can work. everal of our forelgn markets have agriculture of their own to pro- teot, and they have laws in force which may be applied to dumping. and we niay expect reprisals from them against dumping agricultiiral products which will even more diminish our foreign markets. “The bill is esgentially a price-fixing bill, because in practical working the board must arfive in some way at the premmium price which will bé demand- ed from the American consumer, and it must fix these prices in the con- tracts at which it will authorize pur- chases by flour millers, packers, other manufacturers and such co-operatives as may be used, for the board must formulate a basis upon which the board will pay lossés or the éxport of their surplus. Warns of Bureaucracy. “The present volume of exports of the commodities designated in the bill Is one and one-half billion dollars per annum. A multitude of contracts in- volving scores of different grades and qualities and varieties 6f products with thousands ef individu both for raw and manufagtured materials, must be entered into—practically cost- plus contracts. The mohetary volume of these contracts will be further ex- panded beyond even this sum, because in hogs, for instance, the exports are in the main lard and bacon, while other parts of the animal are con- sumed at home, and thus)contracting must apparently need cover all hogs not the export surplus alone. There fore the bill means an enormous build: ing up of Government bufeauctacy to let and inspect these billions of doilars of contracts with all their infinite va- riety of terms covering different goods and their different grades and qual- itles. 1In turn, all of the contracts of resales by these institutions must be examined and checked to determine the losses made. “Parallel with it another bureau- cracy must be bullt up to collect and distribute the equalization fee. 1t all calls for an aggregation of bureau- cracy dominating the fortunes of American farmers, intruding into their affairs and offering infinite op- portunities to fraud and incapacity. It does not replace any middlemen or manufacturers; it means that thou- sands of officials are set to watch them and the farmers to see that they do not evade the requirements. One of our difficulties today is the between the farmer and Al these increased profit and this cost of processors bureaucracy must simply add to this spread without bringing to the farmer any return on such items. In fact, as he I8 a large consumer he also pays this, Government in Business. “While the -Government is mnot directly buying or selling these com- modities, it must under this bill let contracts for others to do so and name therein the terms upon which they shall buy and sell. No matter how disguised, this.in plain terms is Gov- ernment buying and selling of com- modities through agents. “It is proposed that the adminis- tration of this plan shall be -in the control of a board whose members are nominated to the President by agricultural organizations for his transmission _to the Senate for con- firmation. That appears to an unconstitutiona) ' limitation on the aufhority of the President, but, far more important than this, I do_ not believe that upon serious considera- tion the farmers of America would tolerate the precedent of a body of men chosen solely by one industry who, acting in the name of the Gov- ernment. shall arrange for contracts which determine prices, secure the buying and selling of commodities, the ing of taxes on that industry, and pay losses on foreign dumping of any surplus. “There is no reason why other in- dustries—copper, coal, lumber, textiles and others—in every occasional diffi- cult should not recelve the same treatment by the Government. Such action would establish beaurocracy on such a scale as to dominate not only has been given. ° . “The silence of the ‘majority re. port on this phase of the subject, the economic life, but the moral, so- elal and politieal future of our people. “The amount of the equalization fee, and the price at which the co-opera- tive actually disposes of the wheat. Nothing more destructive of all or- derly processes of trade could be im- agined, and nothing more unfair to the non-member of the coperative, since his equalization fee Would be used to pay the losses. “Let us see how the bill is to be put into operation. This act provides that before operations as to any one of these commodities shall begin it shall be necessary to obtain an expréssion from the producers of the commodity through a State convention of such producers. This applies in any State where not 8o many as 50 per cent of the producers of the particular com- modity are membérs of cotoperative assoclations or othér organizations. The best estimate that cah be made is that this would :pnl{ to every State in the Union. 1 quote from the Record with reference to this provision to show that this construction was given to it. The Congressional Record of r‘bh‘ruary 11, page 3602, reads as fol- ows: “ ‘Mr. MecKellar. Immediately fol- lowing that amendment 1 offér an. other amendment on behalf of the #enior Senator from North Carolina (Mr, Simmons) *. ¢ ¢, ““Phe Vice President. The amend- ment will be stated. ‘“ “Theé Chief Clerk. On page 8, line 16, after the word “commodity,” insert the following proviso: ‘M Provi That in any State where not a8 many as 50 per cent of th g:oluoeu of the commodity are mem: r# Of such co-operative associations or other organizations, an expression from the preducers of the commodity shall be obtained through a State con- vention of such producers, to be called by the head of the Department of Agriculture of such State, under rules and regulations prescribed by him.” Reed-McKellar Debate Clted, 'Mr. Reed of Missouri. Mr. Presi- dent, will the rules permit an inquiry of the Senator from Tennessee at this point? Does the last amendment read fix it so that if less than a majority are in favor of the scheme it may be adopted? I8 it planned to call a State convention, a minority of which may be able to accomplish the result de- sired? *“‘Mr. McKellar. No. “‘Mr. Reed of Missouri. does it mean? “‘Mr, McKellar. It means exactly what it says, that such a convention shall pass on it before it is put into operation. Page 3605. “‘Mr. McKellar, I offer an amend- ment on behalf of the senior Senator trom North Carolina (Mr. Simmens). ““The Vice President. The clerk will state the amendment. (Amend- ment repeated.) “‘Mr. Rged of Missouri. Mr. Presi- dent, I do not desire to delay the Senate, but 1 ask for a record vote on these important amendments. I call for the yeas and nays. ““The yeas and nays were ordered, and the chief clerk proceeded to call oll. “§o Mr. McKellar's amendment was agreed to.’ Then what convention of the producers and that the proponent of the amendment said that a minority could not accomplish the result. Usually when there is a convention it is composed of delegates selected by producers. This provision is for a convention of the producers themselves, and before operation as to any commodity can be put into ef- fect there must be such convention called and held in every State where the majority of the producers of the particular commodity are not mem- bers of co-operative associations or organizations. Extent Not Limited. “The extent of this provision is not limited as to the amount of the com- modity produced in any State. For instance, some swine is produced in almost every State; some wheat is pro- duced in the majority of all States; some corn is produced in the majority of all States and, regardless of the amount produced, each such State would have to hold a State convention of all the producers. convention the expense, which must be a tremendous addition to the make. | vears and in some commodi- | nce the surpius | ‘The discon- through the surplus being fed. into the markets or through fear of its sale.” any loss which they may inctr in with- | cost, and if the majority of them did not atterid the convention the delibera- would e not represent the voice of If such relief as by the general pl thie bill were desitable, it would be extremely unwise to hamper it with this most cumbersome and awkward provision. the compliance with which made mandatory as a condition edent to the operatigh of the law | 710 is impossible to how such | tions them must meet in State convention it is entirely nworkable. | Variance in Corn Crop. ‘Corn is & crop that varies betwe: 500,000,600 snd 3,000.000,000 bushels per year, ard the normal export is very small. The reason then for operating thig bill on corn would not grow out of the expoitable sutplus, but, aceording to the definition. in sec. tlon 6 (¢) (2), would grow out of a surplug above ‘the requitements for orderly marketing. The marketing of 1 would. include marketing to a hoeer {o feed to cattle and hog: =0 that a situation might arise wh there would be a surplus above the requitements for orderly marketing. The act then could be put into oper ation as to corn under all the different kinds of agreements. But the vast expente of financing the operations of these agencies in the corn market would by charged not against the en- tire commodity, but against that part of the commodity which is used for milling or processing or that is trans ported by a common carrier. This according to statistics, amounts onl to some 15 to 20 per cent of the corn produced. hat the equalization fee is not laid on the entire commodity is not apparent {rom a casual reading of the one of the follwing: The transporta tion, processing or sale of such unit.’ There is no other wax to collect the fee. If that stood alone, then all the corn would he subject to the fee unless it were used by the raiser, but section 15 (1) says: ‘o’tn tne case of * * * corn, the term “‘processin means milling for market of * * * corn or the first orocessing in any manner for mar- ket * * % of corn not so milled, and ‘he terf ‘“sale” means the sale or other disposition in the United States, of ¢ * & corn for milling or other ocessing for market, for resale, or delivery by a common car- AL for rier. Notes an Exception. S0, unles& the corn is processed or sold for milling or other processing for market or is transported by com- mon carrier, it is_not subject to the equalization fee. But the-great bulk of it, which is nelther processed nor transported by common carrier, is free from the equalization fee. ‘“The only figures in the debates with reference o corn are some esti- mates based solely upon exportable surplus, which really form no basis for the present proposed plan based on desire for orderly marketing and not for controlling the small export- able surplus. While it is difficuit to estimate the burden of this equaliza- tion fee, whith must be borne for the entire crop by this small proportion, the simplest calculation will show that the amount per bushel neces- sarily would be tremendous, so that the market of corfi for milling and other proe ing and for transporta- tion would be entirely dislocated. The provisions of the present measure with reference to an equalization fee on corn must not be confused with the other measures which have been measures put the burden upon the entire crop, but this measure in un- dertaking to place the duty of col- lecting payments on the processor has reached this disastrous result.” Argument Questioned. “It i8 no answer to say that the corn producers would induce their advisory council and the members of the board from their land-bank dis- tricts to_exclude corn from the opera- tion of this bill, because the people who do not pay an equalization fee and on whom the burden does not fall are 80 or 85 per cent of the producers of the corn. “It.may be contended that since there {8 to be an equalization fee on swine the feeders would be taxed, but the swine and corn are separate units and have a separate stabiliza- “You will note that this is a State “If all the producers attended the borne by them individually, would be ¢ operating tion fund and under the law the fees on swine cannot be turned in to the stabilization fund for corn. “In figuring the percentage of the corn crop upon which the fee would fall, while it is possible that the fee might fall on corn carrfed by a com- mon carrier, it is doubtful whether any board would lay a tax on trans- portation where the corn was being transported to be sold to feeders. If they did, of course, the result would]| be that to avold the fee in most cases the seller would not transport by a common carrier. “Free Movement Hampered.” “It is not enough to say that the right to put the equalization fee on swine would adjust the inequalitiés. between those bearing the burden and those not bedring the burden, first, use the board might commence offerating as to corn and not desire to operate or' be permitted to operate as to swine. However, muoh of the corn would be fed to cattle and live stock other than swine, and there is no right to bring theé products of live stock other than swine under the provisions of the law. With a ro- quirement for a fee on part of the corn crop and no fee on the balance, the free movemeént and dealing- in that commodity would be hampered to an almost unbearable extent. It would take a horde of inspectors to assure the payment of the fee on the particular corn required to bear it. *‘A feeder of cattle who had the necessary machinery to grind or crush his corn bought from other farmers for feeding purpgses would be able to market his cattle free from the cost ' to borrow. may be used to cancel :hc note wh‘c'n ue. Deposits may be made on a weekly, semi- monthi or - monthl: as you prefet. G couvenfions of producers could ever | be held. The bill does not say ‘dele | gates: it says ‘producers,’ the farm- er< thernselvek, and if a majority of act. But a close study shows that | section 10 provides that there shall | be paid ‘an equalization fee upon proposed, for the reason that former| FEBRUARY 25, | move: .The terms of Morris Plan Loans are simple and practical and'fair—it is not necessary to have had an account at this Bank MORRIS PLAN BANK Under Supervision U.S. Treasury .. 1408 H Street N. W. «Character and Earning Power Are the Basis @f Credit” | paid 1927. of the equalization fee. v hile another feedor who purchased such ground feed would be comp:l ed to market kis | cattle with the added Coobid. equalization fee « This. course, would be true moreover, the feeder compelled to purchase would pay the fee he sells his swine tional fee on (hat pays twice Ca who ground feed and when pays an addi | tion” He uthor Is Quoted. “It I provided in the the board shall determine in the case of any class of transactions in the commodity whether the equalization fee shall be upon teansportation. processing or sale” While this language is not very clear. a plan is set out by Rep- resentative Haugen, one of the co- authors of the bill, in the following language (Congressional Record, Feb- ruary 10, p. 3528): wheat on hand at the hegin ning of the operation period the board | would undoubtedly have to collect on the processing. In the case of trans- action during the operating perfod the hoard would pick elther the sale or the transportation.’ “The act itself provides in section 10 (b) the board may, by regulation, require any person engaged in the transportation, processing or acquisi- tion sale of a basic agfjcultural commodity: (1) * * ¢ (2) {8 collect an equalization fee as directed by the hoard and to account therefor.’ Thus the common carrier if on transporta- tion, or the processor if on processing, or those who secure by sale, if on sale, collect the fee which must fail on the producer. Transportation under the act means the acceptance of & com- ¥ by a common carrier for de- s (section Regardless of Just how it i collected. it is the intent that it shall fall upon the producer. The farmer pays it when his product hus the Senate report, page 2 The fees are imposed at the point of trankportation, processing, or sale, as the board may determfne. Their amount will, of course, be reflected . in the price to the producer. .* * The committee bill, however, require agricultural producers to meet their (.J\\':] losses with their own moneys. “On page 26 it adds: o *“ ‘Neither of the above effects of the fee constitutes price fixing. The producer or other person may sell for such price as he chooses. The buyer may pay such price as he wills. ‘There is no limitation upon the price to be fixed by the contracting parties save that the equalization fee, just as a broker's fee, will be taken into account in arriving at the price to| be paid.’ Levying Equalization Fee. “It is important to bear in mind that the equalization fee can only be levied upon a unit of the basic agri- cultural commodity. This means the actual commodity itself as defined in section 6, to wit. cotton, wheat, corn, rice, fobacco, and swine. The refer- ence in subdivision (h) of section 6 to food products of the commodity specifically limits the application thereof o sections (d), (e), and (f) of section 6. which do not in any way relate to the equalization fee. Ail of the sections dealing with the equal- ization fee and all of the references to it clearly limit its application to the basi ricultural commodity itself, and they canot lay fee upon flouir or other products of wheat, meal, or other products of corn, meats, or other products of swine. “While there may be some conceiva- ble way of reaching an import 6f any of these agricuitural commodities as such, there is no possible way of reach- ing any of the products of these com- modities after they are processed. The result would be to throw all of our processors and millers who would have to buy the commodity with the cost of the equalization fee added into com- | petition with imports from Canada or | other countries who sent in any prod- uet of any of the basic agricultural commodities. Of course, the millers or other processors who happen to get desirable contracts from the board might be able to recoup that loss to a certain extent, but the milling ca- pacity of the small mills and large mills is great enough to take care of twice the amount of milling and other processing to be done; and the mills which were not fortunate enough to get such contracts would be ruined. “It is a fundamental principle in writing a tariff law that when a duty is placed upon a raw product a compensatory duty must be placed on the manufactured or processed product in which the raw product is used.| Here is a fee placed upon the raw product without an opportunity fo place a like fee upon the processed product - which might be imported. Raw products dumped abroad can there be procesded and reshipped here to the disaster and destruction of this ‘whole bill, ~ Must Hstimate Crop. “In fixing ihe amount of the equali- zation fee the board must necessarily estima because it is t| duty to estimate the probable vances, losses, costs, and charges to be paid” and to determine the amount for each unit. Of course, they are com- pelled to estimate the crop in order to estimate the number of units. One of the co-authors of the bill suggests that if the law had been in operation from 1925 the equalization fee on wheat should yield $131,750,000. I mention this to show the large sums involved. If either the estimate of the crop er the size of the fund need- ed should be inaccurate, so that there s collected many millions more than needed, there is no way to return it to the producer. ‘Suppose there should be estimated an exportable surplus of 200,000,000 bushels of wheat and there is a sur- plus ef but 100,000,000, the fund would be almost twice as large as it should be,. and if the amount involved should be anything like that stated by Representative Haugen the board would have fifty-five or sixty millions more than needed of the farmers’ money. There is no way to return it. eir ‘ad- Loans are pass- ed within a day : ortwo after filing :f lication— ith few escep- tions. MORRIS PLAN notes are usually made 1 year, though they may be given for an: Now, in the case of cotton there is provision that any excess that is ac cumulated for the stabilization fund shall be paid back to the producer This is contained in section 10, sub division (3). and section 11, subdivision (e), as follows ¥ “‘10 (3 In the case of cotton, ta Issue to the producer a serlal recelpt for the commodity which -shall be evidence of the participating interest of the producer in ‘tie -equalization fund for- the commodity. The board may in Ruch case prepare and issue such receipts And prescribe the terms and conditions thereof. The Secretary of the Treasury, upon the request the board. shall have such receipts | prepared at the Hureau of Engraving | and printing.’ | v . . . . Favors Cotton Growers. | “i1 (¢) When the amount in the | equalization fund for cotton is. in the | opinfon of the hoard, In excess of | the amount adequate to carry out the | requirements of this act in respect of such commodity. and the collection of further equalization fees thereon is likely to maintain an excess, the board may retire in their serial order a8 many as practicable of the out- standing receipts evidencing a pa ticipating, interest in such fund. Such retirement &hall be had by the pa; ment to the holders of such receipts of their distributive share of such ex cess as detéermined by the board. The amount of the distributive share pay- able in respect any such receipt shall be an amount bearing the same ratio to the face value of such receipt as the value of the assets of the hoard in or attributable to the fund bear to the aggregate face value of the out- standing receipts evidencing a par- ticipating interest in such fund, as determined by the board.” “But there is no place in the law which provides for a return to the producer of other products where the assessment of the fee levies an amount in excess of that necedsary for the stabilization fund. There is quite a large variance from year to| year of the amount of production of | these different basic agricultural commodities, and it is manifestly n- fair to provide that as to cotton the producer shall share in any excess collected, while as to corn, wheat, swine, rice and tobaéco no such pro- vision exists. In all the similar bills heretofore considered by Congress it has been thought necessary to pro- vide for the return to all producers of any amount they should pay in excess of that required, and it is illogical und indefensible to deem it necessary to still make that provision for the cotton producer and deprive the other producers of that benefit. This appears to be the rankest kind of diserimination in favor of one crop and against all the other crops in the bill. b Proper Estimates Difficult. “Another difficulty will he in mak- ing proper estimates of the amount of products and the amount of the equalization fee. “It is improbable that this board could do any better in this respect than has been done by the Depart- ment of Agricuiture. In Spring wheat the estimates of the department have been 78,000,000 bushels too small and 90,000,000 bushels too large; in Winter wheat, 126,000,000 bushels too small and 140,000,000 bushels too large; in corn, 430,000,000 bushels too small and 657,000,000 bushels too large. In cot. ton the range has been 2,983,000 bafes too small for 1926 and 3,286,000 bales too large for 1918. These are all re- cent estimates and show conclusively the impossibility of arriving at ac- (Continued on 8ixth Page.) ONGRESS canchange its mind-—does now and then. Eut the popu- larity of the e luxe sealed pint package of The Velvet Kind ice cream is a con- stitutional fact—sealed at the freezer. Alk‘ your wife. SouthernDairies Marriage and Divorce LECTURE FRIDAY EVENING AT 8 O'CLOCK Rev. Francis Lyons, C. S. P. St. Paul's Catholic Church 15th & V STS. N.W. | Fwrmnnazzasiaziesd 1110 G EST. 1879 Style —with Becomingness Sticking to the fashion—and having a becoming Hat is only a matter of choosing the correct proportions. The leading Hat Makers of the world, whose productions are presented through us~—many of them exclusively— give indi- viduality to the approved blocks through an individualization of the proportions. You can trust us to set you right. For Spring—in all the new shades: . Henry Heath— London’s Hatter to H. R. H.; exclusive in Washington with us...............$](.00 Stetson— Specially selected blocks in Soft Hats ‘. and Derbys. Beginning at............ $8.00 Borsalino— The Famous Italian Hat, in our selec- tive styles. . ... ceeeneea.$710.00 Finchley— One of America’s most exclusive makes, $8.00 The Mode— Made expressly for us—on hlocks of spe- cial designing........... Very Special There are stilt a few Suits, Overcoats and Top Coats remain- ing of the present. season. Of course, the.sizes are badly broken —but regardless $2 4 75 of regular prices, «