Evening Star Newspaper, April 28, 1929, Page 25

EDITORIAL SECTION Che Sunday Star Part 2—12 Pages WASHINGTON, D. (.. SUNDAY MORNING, APRIL 28, “l!"_’!). SNOWDEN PLANS MUDDLE OUTLOOK ON WAR DEBTS FARM ‘ECONOMIC EQUALITY’ DEFINITION IS DISSECTED Curbing the Mississippi Views on Repudiation Cause Worry for Debtor and Creditor Nations. BY FRANK H. SIMONDS, HE fact that Phillip Snowden, | chancellor of the exchequer in the last Laber government in England and cértain to be a potent factor in any new So- efalist ministry, should have chosen on e eve of election to denounce all the various debt settlements and to re- pudiate the Balfour doctrine on behalf of his party has excited comment and justly aroused apprehension in debtor and creditor nations. It may very well portend startling developments if Labor by any chance carries the next general election. reducing the purchasing power and stimulating the exporting pace of the Germans. Coal deliveries to France on {account of reparations have materially contributed to the ruin of the British coal trade. That is why many. like Snowden. have never given up the idea that there is only one settlement possible— an all-around canceliation and the concomitant wiping out of practically all German payments, which will in- creasingly be made in goods that will | replace British exports. Therefore, while the Snowden speech | was primarily a bit of rather cheap do- Snowden has always maintained m-n‘"llestitr polit ; 'i' was 515; i lt;{;l’\ rinciples which are a little hard to | clear forecast of some definite r Fecnmglv He has proclaimed that the | effort to upset all the debt and repara- United States was playing the role of |tions settlements. if it gets into power. Shylock because it insisted upon pay- Snowden wanis to abolish German pay- | ment by the British of war borrow- | ments, not because he particularly loves ings under the terms of the Mellon- | the Germans, but because he sees clear- Baldwin treaty. But he has with equal ly that reparations payments mean the vigor pronounced as scandaious fhe cxpension of German exports at the British settlement with Italy and cxpense of Britisl Prance which let the Latin allies off 5 With easier terms than Britain got in Wants Others to Pay. ‘Washington But being & politician, Snowden The solution of the debt problem for | wants fo accomplish this desirable re- | Snowden is to be sought in reducing sult at somebody else's expense. He British payments to us and by a repu- wants to make the French pay more | diation ?\{ the existing agreements be- and to compel us to take less. He | tween Britain and her allies. These wants to exploit the British resentment | are to be replaced by new agreements of the American policy of collecting war | calling for larger payments. And par- debts. He wants to arouse British re- ticularly hateful does the Labor leader sentment against France, which is find the famous Balfour doctrine, de- | prosperous, as Britain is not, by arguing signed to make Uncle Sam feel ashamed | that France is paying too little, He and pledging Britain to collect from wants to use the same argument against her allies and from Germany only Italy, thus Jnsuring the appisuse of all enough to pay us. abor members, who hate Mussolini on If Snowden is to have his way—and general principles. he has many followers among ihe La- '~ This is a f{airly dangerous program. bor party and sympathizers in ofh€T It envisages quarreling with all of the rties on this point—one of the flr:l'l nations which were considered allies of | steps of a victorious Labor party t“' Britain ‘during the war except Russia. be to_approach the United Siaies (0 And 1t is Soviet Russia which has alone ask better terms, thus liberating the gone’ the limit in cancelling all the | British. people from what he has de- | gehis which it owes its friends of the seribed as two generations of bondage. | war” Byt Snowden can't attack the jtantly he will try in Europe | el R epcun But concom! e o feating | 8Teat repudiator, because his party con- | to get larger paymen s& U-‘(“é‘i“am.‘ tains many Russian sympathizers. | the extent of the bondage 0! 7| In addition, Snows is indignant recent allies. |because the French have, by virtual I Part Political Bunk. P etation, TR it e i 4 >f the national de at this amounts Of course, In practical terms, 8%, howover “is the demand that the every sensible person knows, this sort ¢ % K e bolitical bunk, the clap- | British, who bought French securities, of talk is pt ;. obviously, for reasons of their own, trap which the professional politician | 0%GAslY, To0, ¥ in every country indulges in on the eve | *hou g g s o of an election. Two things are fairly ‘:?Idmf'_rn;;'::;: l;lrs.';:d n{):nu'\?: l;:::& i British payments to us, and | EUropean country whose currency has ?.f‘:‘?{im B Britains former allies |fallen during or since the war. His e ven less likely to agree to pay |idea seems to be that if a Briton buys Brtain more than Churchill agreed to |the securities of any country, and the accept in his treaties with Rome and | currency of this country loses value. the | | Uncle Sam Al NEW MADRID RIVER BANK FLooDwA CAPE GIRARDEA IR k"" 82 BONNET CARRE SPILLWAY LAKE 'ONCHMTRM;' UPPER: BRIG. GEN. EDGAR JAD. WIN. CHIEF OF ENGINEERS. WHO 1S AUTHOR OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOOD CONTROIL. PLAN AND WHO IS SUPERVISING THE WORK. LOWER: MAJ. JOHN JINEER IN | THE VICKSBURG VNl 'fEW ORLEA S 2N ready Spending Millions in Harnessing Devastating Father of Waters—Present / | the other you go south, it calls Purpose of Relief Aec- Is Universally cepted, but Proposition Has Two Widely Div BY MARK SULLIVAN, HE purpose of farm relief is de- fined everywhere and always in one phrase. That phrase is “to give the farmer economic equal- ity with other industries.” That phrase, or equivalents of it, appear in both party platforms, in the bill itself and in literally thousands of speeches books and newspaper articles. That definition of the purpose of farm relie is accepted by both sides and by all the arguers. From that point everybody starts. It is about the only detail as to which there is universal agreement. Yet the fact is, that is the most dis- putable proposition in the whole dis- cusston. It is disputable because it has two possible meanings. The meanings are almost as distant from each other as the poles of the earth. If you start with one meaning you go north, with As a pious economic parity with other is a universal solvent of As a subject for interpretation. for the most muscular brain work that any farmer is capable of, or any Senator or college president, or any of the others who are writing books and magazine articles and addressing audiences trouble. Does_that phrase mean— (a) That all individual farmers now remaining on the soil shall be as indi- prosperous as automobile me- steel workers and other work- erg in other industries? brdoes the phrase mean— (b) That agriculture as a whole, ag- riculture as an _industry, shall be other American industries are: Namely growing industries, expanding indus- | tries, in which from year to year there UPPER: COL. ERNEST GRAVES, RIGHT-HAND MAN TO GEN. JADWIN IN THE FLOOD CON- TROL. WORK. WHO IS HIM- SEL| A\ MEMBER OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMIS. A Col . B. WILBY. EN- GINEER IN CHARGE OF THE MEMPHES DISTRICT. o | Briton must be reimbursed. It is as reasonable as to insist that when it | rains or snows in France or Italy, the | governments shall take care that the Briton does not, suffer. | After more than 10 years of de- bate the question of war debts has come lown to the simple question of whether ny or the United Stal shall bear the costs of liquidating the whole network of loans and barrowings which took place between the allies. If Ger- many bears it, she must, on the one hand, enormously expand her exports and become a greater and greater fac- tor in world trade. And. on the other hand. the German people are certain as the years pass to resent this tribute, the price of military defeat, more and | more violently. Might Help Ban War. ‘Thus Germany is likely economically | to become more potent and politically less concilfatory, Both these almost in- evitable consequences are of obvious menace for the British. Together they | Nor 1s it even exact, as Snowden al- leges, that France and Italy are paying us a larger proportion of what they | owe us than are paying to Britain. : It is fairly hard to arrive at a com- parison of '.he"t l;‘n:’l;h and American | arrangements countries, because they are differently adjusted. Thus the British have undertaken to collect at once from the French larger al sums than have we. On the other hand, French payments to us rise slowly, but surely. so that in the end the Prench will be paying us a higher rate. ut all this shows astuteness. not stupidity, on the part of Churchill, for | very few people believe that the process | of debt payment will continue for two | generations—that is, until the end of | the periods now fixed. And Bmlsh‘ policy has taken account of this prob- ability and sought to get the most pos- sible while, as our phrase has it, “the ting s .” Thus, while the| | | | BY WILL P. KENNEDY. HE greatest power in the world— the United States Government —has just started the ground- | work of the greatest peace-time | engineering feat—to guide - the | Mississippi River, the “‘Father ~of | dent Coolidge, Congress approved a Waters,” while on fts wildest posstile | plan. of the Army Engineefs, and ap. rampage with a deluge from 31 sum,mprhhd $335,000,000 to carry it out, and part of Canada, down a 1,000-mile | With the expectation of preveniing this channel that is neither straight nor | river from ever again going on such a narrow, from Cairo. Ill. to the Delta. | fampage, and to adequately protect at_the Gulf of Mexico. 30,000 square miles of territory dotted ‘During three months in the Spring | with homes, churches, schools and fac- and early Summer of 1927 Mississippi | tories as well as plantations. River floods caused a loss of 200 lives| The War Department has called upon and destruction of more than $250,- | the Department of Justice, as attorney 000,000 in property. Following a per- | for the Federal Government, to pro- sonal survey and study of the inundated ceed toward acauisition of land for region and the fundamental causes by | two of the five main projects in the Herbert Hoover, now President, but flood-control plan. This plan calls for then personal representative of Presi-! building levees or dikes along practi- ARROWS INDICATE FIRST DRAINAGE AREA PROJECTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. 5 cally the entire west bank of the ser- pentine=windings of the river-and along approximately half of the east bank, making a total of approximately 1,500 miles of levees. To prevent the turbii- lent and mounting waters from break- ing through these river bank barriers and sweeping In destructive waves over villages and. even indusirial s, safety valves are to be provided in the'form of spillways, floodways and catch basmns* to divert the surpius waters above what can be safely chan- neled to the Gulf of Mexico. ‘The problem was this: The “Fath of Waters” had as its natural citie: high- " t French owe us about $1.000,000.000 may mean a long period of Geadly com- more than they owe the British, until | petition followed by a new and later 1934 they will pay Britain more than |time of European unrest and even of the United States. And this settlement | conflict. Both dangers might be largely was made with the profound conviction | abolished if reparations were eliminated. that by that time the whole debt ques- | But such elimination depends upon tion would be readjusted at our ex- | America. Having enabled the Allies to | nse. 1wsn the last war, we could, if we can- | Under the Dawes plan, as it is now | celled the debts, do much to spare | in operation, the British are not doing | them from the possible danger of &/ badly at all. Of the maximum, that is | new conflict. | the normal. German payment of slight- Nevertheless the old argument of the 1v more than $600.000.000, the British =European allies against debt payments | are getting $150.000.000. From the | has gone. Germany is paying the allied | French they are taking in $40,000.000 | debts to us and under any system of | and from the Italians 821,000,000, while | revised reparations she will continue to they are paying us only $161,000.000. | do this for a long time to come. If any *This leaves them a net of $50,000,000. | people is under bondage to the Ameri- which goes to meet the deficit in past | can, it is not the British or the French, | years. when they paid us more than |it is the German. | they received for debts and reparations. | There is one phase of this whole debt Next year the French will pay the | question which none of us on this side British something over $60,000,000 and |of the Atlantic is likely to forget. If the Italians $21.000.000, while it is not | the British at the Coolidge conference until 1933 that British payments to|had been prepared to consent to the us reach the approximate maximum of | limitation of naval tonnage proposed by $183,000,000. Thus, as long as the |our representatives, we should have been German' reparations payments amount | spared an expense which may easily o $400.000.000 vearly, the British, who | cover several vears of British payment. are entitled to a quarter, will be get- | And conversely, if we had agreed to water bed an area some 50 miles wide. But man had encroached upon this domain, set up artificial barriers, estab- shed a civilization behind these flimsy redoubts without reckoning with the tremendous desiructive force of waters Grained. fiom she hills converged into a narrow channel that could not contain it. Here is the United Staie Govern- ment's answer—worked out by th foremest engineers in the world; a so- lution based on the maximum super- flood that can be estimated. as if all the contributing ereas piled up their greatest drainage all at one time; & super-fiood. fignred from its source in the hills, computed from a 40 years’ record of rainfalls and run-offs (Continued on Fourth Page.) Is Civilization Worth While? Tiger of France Discusses Various Phas BY GEORGES CLEMENCEAU, War-time Premier of Prance. IVILIZATION." a scholar has sald, expresses itself in politics, in economics, in technology, while culture expresses itsell in art, in literature, in religion, in morals. Our culture is what we are, our civilization is what we u Civilization, he adds [ preserves it achievements automatically. Culture must always be won afresh. “A poet can write for only those who havc themselves the poetic quality”; and you must win culture by effors before you ting from enemy and ally all that they need to pay America Naturally it would be much pleasanter if the Brit- ish could get more from the French and the Italians and pay us less, but that is another proposition Repudiation of the Balfour note is. after all, rather poor sportsmanship, under the circumstances. The Balfour cancel the British debt in 1923 no pres- sure of financial stringency would have ade even an illusory parity popular Britain. Nor can we forget that the Labor government. in which Snow- den was a dominating figure, assented to the first considersble post-war naval expansion. which wrecked the spirit of the Washington conference agree- | can enter into its achievements. In this way we begin to see the true | eriterion for judging an epoch or a so- clety. It is not ite technical equipment that matter: It is by its culture that it is judged—"by the books men read and write, by the ideals they cherish by the pleasures they pursue, by the religions which they practice, by all the doctrine was enunciated for ihe px-, ment and opened the way to the later ! things they reallv’care about and think press purpose of setting up a contrast between British generosity and Amer- jcan shylockery. The British an- nounced that, unlike the United States, they would never think of collecting money from their allies, or even their poverty stricken enemy. simply for themselves, They would only take enough to satisfy the exigent creditor across the ocean This little gesture made Britain pop- ular and America still more unpopular in Europe, but to us it scemed a “bit thick.” On the surface the proposal, which the British still keep present- ing as the height of statesmanship and humanity, was engaging. But what it actually amounted to was an invita- tion to us to hold tain had lent money oney and while she had lent more than she had borrowed, her chances of recovery were not of the best. If she rould come out even, she would do well We Owed No One. But we had borrowed nothing “in ihe way of money from any one. We owed no one. Cancellation for us was one- sided—we gave up everything. no one forgave us any debt. Naturally ihis device appealed to the British, the French. the Italians. Even the Ger- mans, who saw that if our claims were recuced the claim against them must sink, applauded. We had supplied Europe with $12.000,000,000, yepresent- ed by goods, by money and by interest on money loaned wipe out this debt then there would be nothing left of the costs of war,'cluded employment which will insure | life would still | the outcast from any contact with the | Queen Victoria: thcy made the great. ) g, pay their European conguerers for re- | public may be accorded such persons. ness of our modern industry and com-|pyu( 4 world would not be possible which construction of devastated areas and { Buonaiuti has already been relicved of K merce. except what the German sunken ships Although the British have reached the point where the continen is supplying the money to pay us, they | accepted back into the church, but the | work done or preparation for work to | all of us. in the | holy office denied do not like it for two reasons Arst place, no one can be sure this pay ment will continue indefinitely and the second Pl the whole system of If we were ready 1o | now | employed { unhappy dispute. (Copyrizht 'Conecordat Causes 1020 The University of Rome will lose the services of one of its most eminent teachers when the concordat between | Ttaly and the Vatican becomes fully effective. Prof. Ernesto Buonafuti, in- ternationally known authority on Christian history. will not _only be de- prived of his post in the University of Rome. but under the concordat he can- not teach in any Italian institution of learning. Dr. Buonaiuti was excom- municated from the Roman Catholic Church several vears ago for what the |guardians of the church’s dogma | deemed modernistic or erroneous writ- !ings. Professing his loyalty to Ca- tholicisc the histortan continued to teach at Rome and to publish He never discarded the priestly habit Under the concordat it becomes the duty of Italy to restrain Buonatuti | 1and any ofher priesis excommuni- | cated) from wearing the priestly garb and from having any governmental post | which brings them in contact with the public. In other words, Italy may not employ an excommunicated priest a teacher or as a ticket agent in a railway station or even as supervisor of {a gang of street cleaners, Only se- | teaching duties and is for the present in the university library { There was a report that he would be that steps to that It 15 believed -lend were in progress in|that not many other exesmmunicated |of our civilization (and perhaps chief | artivit { | pricsts occupy government posts at ‘!Dlrlnbna works badly for Britain by | present, - Professor’s Ouster his studies. | about.” Civilization is worth while, but not | without culture. One braces the body. {'another the soul, and we need both o | complete our existence. Aristotle’s Distinction. Aristotle draws 2 distinetion, which i well worth remembering and reflecting | upon, between three sorts of human | activities. There is the activity of work, which we do not pursue for its own sake, but for the sake of a result —Ilet us say. the result of a livelihood. | |There 1 the activity of recreation, | which again we do not pursue for its own sake, but to gain refreshment after work or to make new work more casy to do. Pinally there is the activity of leis- ure (for leisure is not indolence, but a desirable tension of the mind and streich of the facultics); and this | Aristotle says, we pursue for its own | Sake, in the way of hearing noble music and noble poetry, of having intercourse | with friends chosen for their work, and, ' above all, of exercising our speculative | faculttes. [ But this “activity of leisure” is just | what we have called culture; and here {we have thus a new way of under- standing the vaiue of culture. and see- ing whather it is really “worth while.” Made Modern Industry. There are some Who fmmerse vmmr‘ selves in work, as the be-all and end- all of existence. They are not ignoble They are the puritans of the practical They flourished in the reign of Cnderivood CLEMENCEALU, but look— | 1 will not cad pass, speak of them We Jave 1o time to stand and stare? We must all work-—"to maintain the of the world,” and indeed to main- our own simple state. We mu: vy and find recreation, lest we p from overtension; but at any rate let us =0 play that we may do better work, vather than so work that we may get! rid of our work at once and hasten away to play. But we must all mix among our other activitles the activity of leisure, of | which the fruit is culture: and we must mix it in for the sake of our immortal souls, whereof the seasons of leisure are | the growing time. and the fruits of cul- ture are the immortal food. Another big reason why culture vitally worth while is -because of the Finally there are those who immerse themseives in leisure. Some have done this utterly and absolutely; and for the sake of contemplation of the good and | the beantiful they have even withdrawn into the absolute seclusion of the mon- y. They are very far from ignoble 3 | was composed only of such men. The ‘There are others who immerse them- | workaday world needs the balance and | selves in recreation, treating it as an mixture of the three—work, regreation end in itself rather than as rest after | and the culture of leisure—in each and b2 done. Such as these are very nu-| 1 merous in our davs: and the inventions And it I5 because culture is an essen- tial element in the balance of human ! that it i5 entirely and abso- among these the motor car) minister to |1 -l 1 while, i his life if, fyll of care, § their passion What is U | to boredom. Work may become a weari- | place. | come a popular hero that surely one's | head, to be turned by it, must be very cvery | indifferently screwed on t e ! So many people are famox | and | little to compet | sword-swallowers, financiers and train- j cier, who, though the two facts were | the time fo need money. |other financier who had plenty, and I {was urged by my impaverished asso- clate to effect an introduction. {5 { hour to the most adroit use of every | known synonym for being hard up; | prevalence of that plague, the liability | 2nd_ of Life — One Should Laugh at Himself ness of the flesh, recreation may be- come a grasshopper that. tires: but the use of leisure for gaining the fruits of culture steadily remains a fresh joy. By its use—be it only in the form of hobbies, which after ail are one of the , forms of culture—we escape from the weary round of routine, and rise into the new and unwearied life of the free mind, freely moving about the business of its delight. If the customs officers at the fron- tiers of Heaven admit any worldly ac- quisitions to enter with us, it will be Culture, and it Civilization gets in, she will have to hide behind Culture’s skirts, as so many pretenders on earth are ad: is increase of output, increase in the number of workers, increase in the value of the plants—Ilike the steel busi- ness and the automobile business? Definition Confused. It is fair to say that two-thirds of the discussion in Congress confuses these two definitions. The same speak- er, in the same breath, passes from one definition to the other. If the meaning of that phrase is meaning (a)—that is, greater prosper- ity for individual farmers—then the present farm relief bill in the lower house of Congress may do the work. I'ne bill has the potentiality of making individual farmers now on the farms as prosperous as analogous workers and owners in city industries. But if the meaning of that phrase is meaning (b)—that agriculture shall be a growing industry—in that event the present program in Congress will not do the work. The old program of an “equalization fee” would not do it. Frobably no alternative program now being generally discussed will do it. As a first step in clarification, let us concentrate for the moment on defini- tion (b), which assumes that farming as an Industry and as a whole is Vo be given “economic equality” with other industries; that is, that agricultur~ “HAT “pstome-a growing.- expanding in- dustry, as other industries are. Not Growing Industry. Agriculture in America is not mow » growing industry. On the contrary, it is and has been for nearly a gen- sration a declining industry. There are iewer persons on the farms today than here were 20 years ago, in 1909. To give the figures for a few comparatively tecont years, the number of persons living on farms has gone down thus: 1920. .31,614,260 ; 28,981.688 27,892,000 5 £27,699,000 One can picture the same condition, the decline in agricuiture, in another e v that in the 80s farm t of the total popula- tion, had a 50 per cent part in the na- tional life, had 50 per cent of the polit- ical power. By 1920 the farmers were less than 30 per cent of the populztion, had less than a 30 per cent part in the national life, less than 30 per cent of the political power. This condition, that agricujture as an industry is not growing buf declin- ing. is an accepted fact. It is repeated inere only for its aid in clarification. Will He Be Satisfied? Does the individual farmer care whether his indusiry is a growing one or not? If he himself, as an individual farmer, is made individually more pros- perous—will he be satisfied with a farm relief which brings that about? And does he care whether there are more farmers or not, whether agriculture is a growing industry or not? If the farmer will be satisfied to be made individually more prosperous, then he will probably be pleased with ing today. the present legislation in Congress, for that has a reasonable chance to achieve | the result. But if the farmer insists that his industry shall be a growing one, then the pending legislation will not do the and no variation of farm relief now in sight will do the work. The proposal of the old McNary-Haugenites, including their “cqualization fee,” would not make things a growing industry —though the old McNary-Haugenites sincerely thought it would. The McNary-Haugenites knew—and were right in this—that agriculture can only be a growing industry by being an exporting industry. They knew that if agriculture is to grow. it must sell a surplus abroad—"exportable surplus” was a phrase running through all their speeches and literature. They knew, however, that such surplus sold abroad must be sold at a loss. And so they devised an ingenious mechanism. the “equalization fee,” by which the iosses abroad should be assessed against all Lof us here at home, and particularly gainst the farmer himself. “Fee” Would Not Work. The equalization fee would not have worked. No system will work by which farmers sell abroad at a loss. The coun- try would not go on with it. The | farmers themselves would not go on with it. But—and here is the root of the | matter—why is it that agriculture can- | not successfully have an exportable sur- took | plus, while other industries ean? | Why is it that the steel industry can be- | sell abroad. and by so doing prosper greatly? Why is it that, as respects ndustry except agriculture—the 0 begin With. ! higger the exportable surplus the bet- us nowada ter? Why do we all cheer the auto- I think, depress me almobile manufacturers and the steel- e for that ecstasy with) makers on to sell more and more abroad—whereas, we tell the farmer that his exportable surplus is a burden and a mistake? Why is it that the farmer’s exportable surplus must be recognized as meaning a loss, whilc every other industry's exportable sur- plus 1s recognized as a benefit? To put it very tersely, what is this | oucer " distinction which marks off farming from other industries, as re- octs the exportable surplus? Why is ! that every other industry can sell ‘hroad and “get away with it" richly, “hile agriculture, apparently, cannot? Laugh at Yourself. When a man learns to laugh at him- self he begins a lifelong comedy. Cer- tainly that man lavghs best who laughs at himself, because he then laughs at cverything else, (oo. The best work in the world is done by the man who is totally unaware of it. He wants to do it well. because he enjoys it. but the idea fhat he is doing something remarkable has never entered his head, Only when he begins to take himself serfously, to assume for himself the credit which properly belongs to his work, does that work begin to suffer, ind the man himself to fret. He be- omes then terrified of failure. He re- sents criticism, and in order to avold ither failure or criticism he confines himsell to some routine task where omplete success is assured. And to what dismal lengths this | ar of failure may lead there is no | lling. It eliminates risk, and thereby masculates life entirely, until one i ike that Olympic competitor who, when vanquished, burst forthwith into flood: { tears and was led from the field | onvulsed. Never Fear Failure. I never personally feared failure, not ven as it affected my pocket; and “hile I at no time fancied myself in | the risk of becoming famous, I am glad to remember I was the first to; laugh when that phenomenon | It is so distressingly easy to | it would, ers of performing seals. And certainly, if one is famous, a sense of humor is essential. I was as- sociated once with a well known finan- not in any way related, happened at 1 knew an- ! | 1 did so, and listened for half an' | gent Meanings. | The answer is—mass production (to- gether with. in a degree, the tariff) More lengthily, the answer is that manufacturers can practice mass pro- duction, whereas farmers cannot. When Hudson or Studebaker has made its first 100,000 automobiles the additional cost of making tbs ~%t one relatively almost negligible. But when the farmer has plowed and har- rowed and seeced and weeded his firs hundred 2cres the additional cost of plowing and seeding the next acre is practically the same as the cost of any of the other acres. That fundamental distinction is what makes it possible for other industries o have an exportable surplus success- fully—and impossible for the farmer, Alfter an automobile manufacturer has built his factory and set up his ma- chinery and 1aid out his model and pat- terns and made his first 100000 ma- chines, thereafter he can make addi- tional machines at a cost so low that | the price he gets abroad for his “ex- portable surplus” is no loss to him. But with 2 farmer the case is quite different. His thousandth bushel of wheat involves an additional cost to him practically as great as the cost of his first bushel or any other bushel. Whenever the farmer raises more than he can sell at home his “exportable sur- plus” represents so great an additional cost to produce that if he sells it abroad at all he must sell it at a lose. This distinction, that manufacturers can practice mass production and that farmers cannot, is fundamenta). Grasp that, and much of' the farm relief prob- lem becomes clear. Seek Factory Methods. One group of farm “reliefers.” seeing this distinction and admitting it. think there is a way out. They think the way is to_have mass production on the farms, They say farming should imi- tate big business. should be done in big units. They would have farms of 1,000~ 000 acres each, with factory methods— with all the attributes of mass produe- tion. But every farmer knows that you can’t have the attributes of mass pro- duction on the farm. Every farmer knows that the condition which makes mass production on farms impossible, will operate on a million-acre farm as much as on a hundred-acre one. Mass production is not big production mere- v. “Mass production” is the recog- nized name for a method. That meth- od is possible in manufacturing; in farming the method is impossible. Big farms might mean—though this is not certain—a slight reduction in the cost of raising each bushel of wheat. But the reduction would be negligible, com- parcd to the reduction that mass pro- duction effects in manufacturing. The farm relievers who propose mass pro- duction on farms are not themselves farmers. Anyhow, America doesn’t want . mil- lion-aere farms. run under factory con- dfiions. That would mean that the in- dividual farmer. now independent, would become a hired man. A T May Aid Prosperity, - The farm relief plan now pending ih he Lower House of Congress can and may make the individual farmer more prosperous. But it cannot make agri- culture a growing, expanding industry in the sense that steel and automobiles are growing industries. It cannot en- able agriculture to have an exportable surplus and sell it to advantage, Under every plan of farm relief now geonerally discussed. American agricul- ture will ultimately—and soon—be re- stricted to the home American market. (What is said here applies to ordinary crops; there are exceptions, rect by everybody. in which the conditions are fundamentally different, such as cotton.) As the caterer to the American mar- ket and given a monopoly of the Amer- ican market by the tariff—under these conditions the American farmer, as an individual, can do very well. But agri- culture an industry cannot become a growing, expanding industry, in the sense that steel and tomobiles are growing industries. Only those indus- tries ean grow which export. which have the whole world as their poten- tial market. This fact, that the farm relief now contemplated will not make agriculture a growing industry, is disagreeable to many farm spokesmen in Congress. They do not like to admit it. But the fact is that the present major pro- gram of farm relief looks to having as many, and no more, farmers in Amer- ica as will feed our own population. America, in short, is on the way toward becoming a great manufacturing nation, a great exporter of manufactured goods, with only so much agriculture as will, 5o to speak. do the gardening for our own people, Means Revolutionary Step. But suppose some one insists on defi- | nition (b), that agriculture as a whole | shall be a growing industry. Suppose | the farm leaders say, “We demand leg- | islation that will restore agriculture to the position it once had: we demand that America shall again be a great | agricultural country, that the farmers shall again be 50 per cent of the. popu- lation, have a 50 per cent share in the ! national life, have 30 per cent of polit- | lcal power.” | If legislation to that effect be dee | manded, how should we go about it? { The answer is almost like the answer |to a request for the unscrambling of an omelet. Or it is like trying to turn | the clock back 50 years. | For one step, we should have to abans | don our protective tariff on manuface | tures. That, at this stage, would be | pretty revolutionary. One can state the situation in a few | sentences: i In America, for over 50 years, more jand more manufacturing has been | done. What is it that has stimulated | manufacturing in America? Answer, the protective tariff. If we want to re- verse the process, what step should be {taken? Answer, get rid of the protec- tive tariff on manufactures. But is the country generally, is the farmer himself, willing to contemplate that step? It might, after a period of economic dislocation, cause agriculture to grow as an industry, But the inter- vening period, the immediate conse- quence, would be pretty painful to everybody, including the farmer. Olympic Yacht Ban Hit by Norway Club Norway's Olympic committee is aroused by the proposal to discontinue yachting from the Olympie events. ‘The Royal Yacht Club has decided to signify disapproval through its Nore wegian representative on the internas tional Olympic committee. There is general regret here that, owing to the heavy expense involved, Norway must refrain from participation in the then. on leaving, I thanked our (Continued on Fiith Page.) ¢ To answer that question is to clarify the whole situation. vachting contests of the 1932 Olym; in Los Angeles. o