The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, March 7, 1921, Page 14

i f PresIdentuHanrding’s Cabinet Choices - Bankers Predominate in New Administration—New Secretary of Agrlculture S THIS issue of the Leader is being prepared the Associated Press has announced that Presi- dent Harding’s cabinet will be made up of the following nien, with a possibility, how- ever, of one or two last-minute changes: Secretary of State—Charles Evans Hughes. Secretary of War—Senator J. W. Weeks. Secretary of the Navy — Edwin Denby. Secretary of the Treasury—Andrew W. Mellon. Attorney Daugherty. Postmaster General—Will H. Hays. General — Harry M. Henry C. Wa]lace, new secretary of agriculture. Secretary of the Interior—Senator A. B. Fall. Secretary of Commerce — Herbert Hoover. Secretary of Agriculture—Henry C. Wallace. Secretary of Labor—J. J. Davis. The first thing to be noted in con- sidering this list of names is that ev- ery member of President Harding’s cabinet is a representative of the re- 9yetionary faction of the Republican party. Approximately one-half of the voters of the United States are Re- publicans. How the Republicans were divided was shown clearly in 1912 when approximately three-fifths left the party to vote for Roosevelt, while two-fifths remained in the party to vote for Taft. Mr. Harding’s cabinet selections are all made from the two- fifths that remained reactionary. The Harding cabinet, therefore, represents not more thay one-fi.fth of the Ameri- can people. Another notable feature of the cab- inet is its wealth and the way the banking profession is represented. It has been claimed that the aggregate wealth owned outright by members of the cabinet is $400,000,000, while Mr. Mellon alone is said to control $2,000, 000,000. The new secretary of labor is a banker and the secretary of agri- culture is a bank director. Two other members are lawyers, with large banking and corporation practices, and Secretary Weeks, like Mr. Mellon, is a multi-millionaire banker. O” the list of 10 men just two, Mr. Jiughes and Mr., Hoover, stand out as v . - a Farm Paper Publisher men with a national reputation. They are also regarded as the most liberal of the cabinet appointments, though a fairer way to class both men would be as intelligent conservatives. It is un- fortunate, however, that Mr. Hoover and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Hughes, although most nearly entitled to be regarded as progressives, are neither on close terms with the small group of progressives in the United States senate. Mr. Harding has been most severely criticized for the appointment of Mr. Mellon and Mr. Daugherty. Mr. Mel- lon, as secretary of the treasury, will have charge of the enforcement of the prohibition act. In addition to being a banker, however, Mr. Mellon has large distillery interests, including the control of some 1,500,000 gallons of whisky held in bond by the Over- holt distillery. Mr. Daugherty is an Ohio politician who has devoted much more of his time to politics than to law practice. Farmers naturally are interested chiefly in the new secretary of agri- culture. Mr. Wallace, like the retir- ing secretary of agriculture, E. T. Meredith, is the editor of a farm paper. Both own papers published at Des Moines, Iowa. There have been two differences between the papers. While Mr. Meredith’s paper, “Success- ful Farming,” has been devoted almost entirely to increased production and has consistently carried packer propa- ganda, Mr. Wallace’s paper, “Wal- lace’s Farmer,” has also devoted con- siderable attention to farmers’ mar- keting problems and has had a few editorials mildly in favor of packer control. Otherwise there is little to choose between the retiring secretary and the new one. Neither is a “dirt farmer,” though both are farm own- ers. Both are also bankers. The new secretary of agriculture was born at Rock Island, Ill., in 1866, the son of a Presbyterian minister. For five years he was manager of a farm in Iowa which hisgfather had ac- quired, then completed a course he had started earlier in the Iowa Agricul- tural college, became a professor of dairying and in 1894 started a publi- cation that was later named “Wal- lace’s Farmer” and moved to its pres- ent location at Des Moines. Mr. Wallace is said to have pre- pared the speech on agricultural prob- 4 lems which President Harding deliv- ered at the Minnesota state fau' last" summer. The Leader has had numerous let- ters from subscribers, in Iowa and- other states, both praising and criti- cizing Mr. Wallace. We prefer to take no editorial position at this time regarding Mr. Wallace. We want to see what he will do and we believe the : farmers of the United States feel the same way about it. One of the first tests of the attitude of the new secretary of agriculture probably will be the unfair spring wheat grades established by former Director Brand of the bureau of mar- kets under the Houston administra- tion. Secretary Meredith, shortly after he assumed office, promised.farmers that' steps would be taken to amend these grades, but after holding a hear- -ing, dominated by the millers and grain gamblers, Meredith accepted their position and forgot his promises to the farmers: There is plenty of opportunity for the new secretary of agriculture to- mark a big improvement in his admin- istration. = The Leader hopes I ne takes this opportunity. Packers’ Agent Defends Grain Gamblers HE “Big Five” p::kers are now out in thc « den, fighting to help t{heir allies, the grain gamblers of the Chicago Board .of Trade and Minneapolis Chamber of Cor:merce. L. H. D. Weld, manage:» commercial research department, Sw..ft & Co., Ch'cago, has written the following letter {5 the .beader defending the grain speculd- tors: “Editor Nonpartisan Leade1 The Nonpartisan Leader of December 13 contained an editorial under the cap- tion, ‘Fake Exposed,” in which Mr. Johnston is criticized for quoting fig- ures to show that during the 10-year period, 1901-1910, the average price of wheat during the last six months of these years was 92.4 cents and the average price during the first six months 93.5 cents. The purpose of these figures, of course, was to show that over a period of years it would have been unprofitable for farmers to hold their wheat. s “The editorial pointed out that Mr. Johnston’s figures, which were taken from my book on ‘The Marketing of Farm Products,’ compared the price of wheat during the last half of a year with the price during the first half of the same year, and were therefore _ fallacious. “I may suggest that when a period of years is taken into consideration there would be no inaccuracy involved in making such a comparison. In or- der, however, that this matter may be settled in terms that would satisfy Henry C. Wallace, who is the author of the attack upon Mr. Johnston’s fig- ures, I have made comparisons for the - 10-year period 1903-04 to 1912-13 in the price of contract wheat as reported by the Chicago Board of Trade. The re- sults show that the average price dur- ing the last six months of these years was 98.4 cents and during the first half of the following years $1.018—an increase - of 8% cents, or scarcely enough to pay interest, storage charges and shrinkage. “A similar comparison has been made showing the average mean price of No. 1 porthern spring wheat at Chicago for™~the same period. The prices taken are the average of those quoted by the Chicago Board of Trade for the first of each month. Since spring wheat is generally ready for market a little later in the year than winter wheat, I have made a compari- son between the six-months period be- ginning with August and the six months ending with July of the fol- lowing year. The results show an average price of $1.031 for the months of August to January and $1.0245 for the following months, February to July. In other words, speculators lost money during these years, and also the farmers who did not market their wheat promptly after harvest. The average price in August and Septem- ber was above $1.05, higher than the average of any during the period.” OUR ANSWER TO MR. WELD’S ARGUMENT Mr. Weld attempts to make three points. These are: 1. That it makes little or no differ- ence whether price comparisons are made on the basis of the calendar year, or on the basis of the wheat- malketmg year. 2. That on the average, wheat held until spring has raised in price only 3% cents and that on this basis it does not pay to hold it. 3. That spring wheat actually is lower in price in the spring than it was in the fall when it was harvested. We will answer these points in the same order in which Mr Weld makes them. 1. In the first placg Mr. Weld shows by his own argument that ‘it does make a difference whether the calen- dar “year or the crop-marketing year is taken as a-Ddasis for calculation. By “taking the calendar year as a basis for calculation Mr. Weld showed an ad- vance of only 1 cent in the prite of wheat. Now, by taking the crop- growing year as a basis for calcula- PAGE FOURTEEN \ f / succeeding month. tion, he shows an advance of 8% cents. 2. Mr. Weld, as an employe of Swift & Co., of course has easier ac» cess to the contracts and records of the Chicago Board of Trade than the Leader has. our statistics upon the official figures of the United States department of agriculture and other government in- vestigators. The United States department of agriculture has assembled figures for the years 1904-1913, covering the av- erage prices paid for wheat on the Chicago Board of Trade during each month of these 10 years. These fig- ures are for the calendar year, which basis of calculation, as Mr. Weld has just shown, shows about 2 cents less favorably for holding than figures on the crop-marketing year. This is because wheat normally increases slightly in price from year to year. The average price for the 10 yea . 1890-1899, for instance, was 76 cents, “for 1900-1909 was 89.cents and for 1910-1919 was $1.48. So these figures, on the calendar-year basis, give the grain gamblers all the best of . it. However, they are the best figures we have at hand and they are OFFICIAL. This is what they show: Month Awv. price Month Av. price January ..$1.001° July ..... ..$.952 February . 1.009 August ..... .923 March .... 1.007 September . .956 April ..... 1.015 October .... .984 May ...... 1.068 November .. .974 June ...... 1.084 December .. .988 Av. 6 mos. $1.021 Av. 6 mos.$ .962 According to these OFFICIAL figures, therefore, the average price during the last six months of the vear was nearly 6 cents lower than the average price durmg the first six months of the year, in place of the 1-cent" difference shown by Mr. Weld’s first figures and the 3%-cent differ- ence shown by his second set of fig- ures. But notice further that Mr. Weld. does not give the figures by months, as we do, but contents himself wnth We have to depend for . 2 “r _Rain) T X {5 &5 P )y & ) i s