You have found an item located in the Kentuckiana Digital Library.
No. 80 "The AAA And Our Form Of Government: An Analysis of a Vicious Combination of Fascism, Socialism and Communism Which Cannot Be Harmonized with the Basic Principles of Constitutional Government in the United States," December 2, 1935.
No. 80 "The AAA And Our Form Of Government: An Analysis of a Vicious Combination of Fascism, Socialism and Communism Which Cannot Be Harmonized with the Basic Principles of Constitutional Government in the United States," December 2, 1935. American Liberty League. 400dpi TIFF G4 page images Digital Library Services, University of Kentucky Libraries Lexington, Kentucky Am_Lib_Leag_80 These pages may freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. No. 80 "The AAA And Our Form Of Government: An Analysis of a Vicious Combination of Fascism, Socialism and Communism Which Cannot Be Harmonized with the Basic Principles of Constitutional Government in the United States," December 2, 1935. American Liberty League. American Liberty League. Washington, D.C. 1935. This electronic text file was created by Optical Character Recognition (OCR). No corrections have been made to the OCR-ed text and no editing has been done to the content of the original document. Encoding has been done through an automated process using the recommendations for Level 1 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file. Supreme Court continued its course there would be a return to "the old policy that every farmer was . . . free to raise whatever and as much of any crop as he pleased." Why should not the farmer be "free to raise whatever and as much of any crop as he pleased"? When government dictates to the farmer the conditions under which he is permitted to try to earn a living, the farmer is reduced to a condition bordering closely upon peasantry or serfdom. Needless to say that is a condition repugnant to every instinct of this great body of self-reliant citizens and equally repugnant to American traditions of constitutional self-government. No one knows what might be the final pattern of the American Government if the present economic planners were able fully to realize their objectives. The process of change has gone far enough to make it plain that the principles of centralized control and subordination of the rights and liberties of individuals to the fancied needs of the Government, which are characteristic of present regimes in Russia, Germany and Italy, would be dominant. The people of the United States do not want Communism, National Socialism or Fascism. Neither of the major parties dares to put any of these principles in its platform. Some of them were a part of the Socialist platform which was overwhelmingly rejected by the people. The American system of government has not broken down. Under it the people of this country have enjoyed privileges and a standard of living such as have prevailed nowhere else, even in recent trying years. Readjustments to meet changing conditions are necessary. But the only hope for the future lies in adherence to the broad lines of the American system. If this course is followed, the Federal Government and the states will retain sovereignty in their respective fields, democratic principles will prevail through maintenance unimpaired of the powers and responsibilities of the Congress and individual citizens will enjoy the liberties guaranteed to them under the Constitution. 16 â˜… â˜… THE AAA AND OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT â˜… â˜… â˜… An Analysis of a Vicious Combination of Fascism, Socialism and Communism Which Cannot Be Harmonized with the Basic Principles of Constitutional Government in the United States AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE J^ational Headquarters NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. â˜… â˜… Document No. 80 December, 1935 The AAA and Our Form of Government â˜… Existing regimentation of the farmers of the United States constitutes a definite challenge to the American form of government. Control of agriculture and of a large segment of related industry is in conflict with democratic principles and with fundamental theories under the Constitution. The progressive tightening and expansion of regulation, inevitably characteristic of economic planning, is a vicious combination of Fascism, Socialism and Communism. The President describes the New Deal program as "the new order of things." Whatever it ultimately may lead to, the steps taken in agriculture involve a distinct departure from the system of government responsible for American achievements over a period of nearly a century and a half. In any consideration of the AAA this fact must be squarely faced. Complete approval of its policies cannot be given without abandonment of basic ideas upon which these United States of America were founded. The structure of legislation, under which the Agricultural Adjustment Administration exercises its control, includes the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933; the Bankhead Cotton Control Act of April 21, 1934; the Kerr Tobacco Act of June 28, 1934; amendatory acts of April 7, 1934, May 9, 1934, and March 18, 1935, relating respectively to cattle, sugar and rice; and the law of August 24, 1935, making comprehensive amendments to the earlier acts and embracing also the Potato Act. Essential points with respect to the bearing of these far-reaching laws, as amended, upon the American form of government are as follows: 1. Liberties inherent in the American system of government are sacrificed by farmers who desire cash benefits under so-called voluntary contracts for control of acreage or production. 2. Under the Constitution there is a dual system in which the states have sovereign powers over local economic activities while commerce among states falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Regulation of production through adjustment contracts and marketing agreements runs counter to constitutional provisions for the dual system. 3. Delegation of broad power to the Secretary of Agriculture both with respect to control of agriculture and imposition of processing taxes ignores the separation of powers of the Federal Government among three coordinate branches. 4. Gradual expansion of control, not only over additional agricultural products but over competitive commodities, points increasingly toward a condition wherein individual initiative, which has given the United States a dominant position in industry, is curbed on every hand. 5. "Orders" to processors and handlers, substituted in the amended law for licenses, form with marketing agreements a Fascist method of controlling agriculture and related industry. 6. Privacy of farmers and of persons handling farm products is invaded in violation of guarantees of the Bill of Rights under authority in the amended law to examine books and papers. 7. Control under the Cotton, Tobacco and Potato Acts is of a compulsory character entirely foreign to American methods. 8. Devices for regulation of agricultural production fit into a system wherein individual freedom is subordinated to the whims of the Government as in Communist Russia, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. 9. All sorts of Socialistic enterprises may be engaged in by the Government through a Delaware corporation now operating under the direction of the AAA. 10. Referenda on continuance of cash benefits, cited by defenders of the AAA as evidence of retention of democratic processes, are so conducted by the Department of Agriculture as to be certain to be answered affirmatively. Essentials of Our Government In order to grasp the significance of the change in form of government under the AAA it is desirable to note the essentials of the system established by the Constitution. The American colonies revolted against an autocratic type of government and established a republic. Our government is a federation of states and thus is a federal rather than a national republic. Under a federal system dangers of a centralized government are minimized. The states are sovereign over activities within their borders and over matters affecting the private lives of their citizens. Powers of the Federal Government are those specifically conferred upon it in the Constitution. The Federal Gov- eminent, while given power over commerce among the states, has no authority over production or manufacture. Any effort to extend its powers in this direction represents a departure from the dual system which was described by the late James Bryce, British historian, as the most striking feature of the American Government. The separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the Government is a part of the framework of our democracy. Through their representatives in the Congress the people may express themselves on policies. The executive branch is empowered only to administer the laws enacted by the legislative branch. Usurpation by the Executive of legislative powers in disregard of the principle of separation of powers represents a seizure of power contrary to the Constitution. Perhaps the most important part of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights which establishes the principle of freedom of individuals in their private lives and business activities. Curtailment of the liberties guaranteed under the Constitution involves a change in a vital element in our form of government. In the light of the manifest effort to set aside principles embodied in the dual system, in the three coordinate branches and in the Bill of Rights, it is apparent that a very definite change in the form of government is involved in the AAA program. Constitutionality The constitutionality of the agricultural laws is before the courts. For two and one-half years the Agricultural Adjustment Act has been in effect. Until recent months the administration did nothing to expedite a decision in the highest court on the constitutional questions involved. The amendments to the act, approved by the Congress at the instance of the administration in August, 1935, are intended to circumvent judicial objections to the original act. It is the administration's intention that the same system of control shall remain in effect under authority of the revised law regardless of any decision by the Supreme Court. Uncertainty therefore prevails whether forthcoming decisions will be clear-cut in their effect upon existing laws and whether it will be found eventually that the draftsmen of the revised act have succeeded, through devious legalistic devices, in making the AAA conform i in letter even if not in spirit with the terms of the Constitution. The revised act was drafted after the Supreme Court in the NRA case had held that it was not the province of the Court to consider the economic advantages or disadvantages of a centralized system of control of industry, but that it was sufficient to say that "the Federal Constitution does not provide for it" and that "the authority of the Federal Government may not be pushed to such an extreme as to destroy the distinction, which the commerce clause itself establishes, between commerce 'among the several states' and the internal concerns of a state." The revision of the act took place also after the United States Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston held that the Agricultural Adjustment Act was invalid because the Congress had no authority to regulate products within the control of the State, and that the act constituted an improper delegation of power. A Permanent Plan When the Agricultural Adjustment Act was enacted in May, 1933, the assumption was that the unusual control therein embodied was of an emergency nature. The act provides that it shall cease to be in effect "whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency in relation to agriculture has been ended." If the framers of the act intended the status of agricultural control to be different from that of regulation of industry, which was for a two-year period under the National Industrial Recovery Act, they were careful not to emphasize it. Now it appears that it was the intention all along to use the supposed emergency law as the basis for a permanent system of control. The President's statement of October 25, 1935, settles any doubt on this point. "But it never was the idea of the men who framed the act, of those in Congress who revised it, nor of Henry Wallace nor Chester Davis that the Agricultural Adjustment Administration should be either a mere emergency operation or a static agency," said the President. "It was their intention as it is mine to pass from the purely emergency phases necessitated by a grave national crisis to a long-time, more permanent plan for American agriculture." It may be assumed that the President had the AAA as well as other New Deal policies in mind 5 when he said in his annual message to the Congress on January 4, 1935, that "we have undertaken a new order of things." Secretary Henry A. Wallace and Under Secretary Rexford G. Tugwell of the Department of Agriculture both have pointed out the wide differences between the new order and the old. Secretary Wallace in a speech in New York City, November 14,1935, on "America Considers its Constitution," urged "willingness and determination to undertake important integral changes in our economic and political institutions." Under Secretary Tugwell at Los Angeles on October 28, 1935, asserted that "we must make irrevocable political commitment to disciplined democracy, to calculated change of institutions whenever that may be necessary." The nation now is witnessing, Mr. Tugwell said, "the death struggle of industrial autocracy and the birth of democratic discipline." Commodity Benefits Theoretically, the system of agricultural benefits for adjustment of acreage or production is voluntary. A farmer need not enter into a contract unless he desires. However, if he wants to obtain the cash benefits he must sign a contract under which he agrees to forego any exercise of his independent judgment as to the amount of a farm commodity to be produced for market. The contract thus is the means of the regimentation of agriculture at the instance of bureaucrats in Washington. The original act authorized payments by the Secretary of Agriculture for "reduction in the acreage or reduction in the production for market, or both, of any basic agricultural commodity, through agreements with producers or by other voluntary methods, and to provide for rental or benefit payments in connection therewith or upon that part of the production of any basic agricultural commodity required for domestic consumption, in such amounts as the Secretary deems fair and reasonable." Thus, in these broad terms, the act delegated authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to devise the scheme, draw up the contracts, fix the rate of benefits and impose conditions upon the farmers participating. In the amended act a mass of verbiage is substituted with a view to prescribing principles to govern the action of the Secretary of Agriculture in the hope of avoiding a verdict of unconstitutionality. While the original act provided for benefits for "reduction" in acreage or production, the amended act contemplates "adjustment." Farmers are to be paid in 1936 for raising more hogs and corn whereas in 1935 they were paid for raising less. The contracts with farmers are voluminous documents giving the AAA control over their activities in numerous respects. For purposes of supervision and investigation agents of the AAA are given access to the farms and to all records and information which may be desired. The original act named seven basic agricultural commodities, wheat, cotton, field corn, hogs, rice, tobacco and milk and its products. Now there are fifteen, the eight added in subsequent laws being rye, flax, barley, grain sorghums, cattle, sugar beets and sugarcane, peanuts and potatoes. Half-way measures have proved impractical with a consequent demand for an extension of control. "Economic planning," once commenced, must go on and on. Benefits are intended to represent the approximate difference between market prices and what is called the fair exchange value or parity price. The goal thus to be achieved is a purchasing power of a unit of a farm commodity in terms of industrial goods equal to that in a pre-war or post-war base period. Besides payments for adjustment of acreage or production the AAA under the amended act may allow benefits in return for removal of surplus, for expansion of domestic or foreign markets and for production under a domestic allotment. Funds available from processing taxes and previous appropriations are supplemented by the appropriation of 30 per cent of receipts from customs duties. The effect is to withdraw approximately $100,000,000 heretofore used for general expenditures of the Government and to increase the burden upon the taxpayers by that much. Processing Taxes Thus far processing taxes have been levied or specifically authorized on cotton, tobacco, hogs, corn, wheat, peanuts, sugar, rice, rye and barley. The taxes are intended to finance agricultural benefits paid to farmers on these particular commodities. Under the amended act the processing taxes are authorized at the rates previously established by the Secretary of Agriculture. In this manner 7 it is attempted to avoid an adverse court decision on grounds of an undue delegation of authority. The amended act also attempts to ratify the actions taken under the original measure. By means of the processing tax the AAA extends its control over the processing industries such as meat packers, flour millers, cotton textile manufacturers and tobacco manufacturers. The tax adds to the costs of these industries and must be passed on to consumers or absorbed. If passed on to consumers in the case of a commodity for which there are substitutes, it means a reduction in volume of sales which in turn reacts against the farmer. The amended law sets up restrictions which will make it increasingly difficult for processors to obtain refunds in the event the tax is held to be unconstitutional. The protection to the consumer in the amended act is somewhat less than in the original law. Under the revised measure there is a negative provision "authorizing no action" tending to keep prices to farmers at a level above the fair exchange value or parity price. The original law contained an affirmative mandate for a revision of prices for the protection of the consumer. Taxes on Competing Goods The taxes imposed upon commodities which compete with those upon which processing taxes have been levied furnish an example of the never-ending chain of control set up under the AAA. The law authorizes the imposition of compensating taxes upon competing products when either producers or processors of a basic farm commodity have been affected adversely by shifts in consumption. The compensating taxes are levied upon the first processing of the competing commodity with the purpose of offsetting any advantage such commodity may have gained from the higher costs ef the farm product. The Secretary of Agriculture imposed a compensating tax, effective November 1, 1935, on reinforced paper tape. Users of cotton tape turned to paper tape when prices of the former went up, due to the processing tax. Other paper products have similarly been subject to compensating taxes. For a time a compensating tax was levied on jute until farmers complained of the higher cost of burlap bags. Marketing Agreements and "Orders" The original act authorized marketing agreements and licenses in connection with any agricultural commodity or product thereof. The amended law authorizes marketing agreements for any commodity but permits "orders" to enforce them only in the case of milk and its products, fruits and their products, pecans, walnuts, olives, tobacco and its products, vegetables and their products, soy-beans and naval stores (rosin and turpentine). "Orders" may be imposed upon processors, associations of producers and others engaged in the handling of the specified products, these groups being designated in the act as "handlers." Through the "orders," which are not substantially different from the licenses which were held to be invalid in several decisions in the lower Federal courts, it is made possible to control every step in the production and distribution of the specified agricultural products from the farm to the consumer. It is a Fascist system of control under which, just as in Italy, the handlers are nominally given a voice in the determination of policies but are powerless if the Government wishes to override their recommendations. Handlers of at least 50 per cent of the volume of the commodity affected must sign a marketing agreement, and two thirds by number or volume of the producers must approve issuance of an "order" before it can be issued. However, if handlers of 50 per cent of the volume do not sign, but two thirds of the producers by number or volume are favorable, "orders" may be issued with the approval of the President. The provision with respect to handlers thus is a mere gesture of conformance to democratic principles. A dissenting producer or handler is powerless under the system of marketing agreements and "orders," assuming that the restrictions imposed can be enforced. Only the quotas fixed in the "orders" can reach the market. All producers and handlers thus are completely under control. The "orders" for commodities other than milk and its products may contain terms and conditions for limiting the total quantity that may be marketed by all handlers, allotting the quantity each handler may purchase or handle on behalf of any and all producers, allotting the quantity each handler may market, controlling and disposing of surplus, establishing reserve pools, prohibiting unfair competition and unfair trade practices, posting of sale prices by handlers and appointing an administrative agency. Terms and conditions for milk and its products may include the classifying of milk and the fixing of uniform minimum prices to be paid by handlers. The program thus contemplates not merely control of production but actual price fixing. While nominally the system of marketing agreements and "orders" applies only to such transactions as are within the scope of authority of the Federal Government, the amended act broadens the applicability to commodities "in the current of interstate or foreign commerce, or which directly burdens, obstructs, or affects, interstate or foreign commerce." Under the original act licenses might be issued in the case of commodities "in the current of interstate or foreign commerce." Much of the milk which is proposed to be controlled under marketing agreements and "orders" is not involved in interstate commerce. Books and Records The producers and handlers who are brought under control through marketing agreements and "orders" must throw their books open to the agents of the AAA. The amended law has a new section providing that all parties to any marketing agreement and all handlers subject to an "order" shall furnish the Secretary of Agriculture with such information as he finds to be necessary to enable him to ascertain and determine the extent to which such agreement or "order" has been carried out or has effectuated the declared policy of the act, and to determine whether or not there has been any abuse of the privilege of exemptions from anti-trust laws. For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of reports thus made, the Secretary is authorized to examine such books, papers, records, copies of income tax reports, accounts, correspondence, contracts, documents, or memoranda, as he deems relevant. Documents may be demanded not only from parties to marketing agreements and from handlers but also from any person directly or indirectly controlling such a party or handler or from any subsidiary of any such party, handler or person. The power thus given to search the papers of a milk distributor operating entirely within a state is a flagrant overstepping of the constitutional bounds of the authority of the Federal Government. It is an unwarranted encroachment upon liberties of individuals even when 10 the business transaction is within the scope of Federal authority. Penalties Severe penalties are provided for violation of "orders" issued under broad delegation of power to the Secretary of Agriculture. Any handler subject to an "order" or any officer, director, agent or employee of such handler who violates any of its provisions shall, upon conviction, be fined not less than $50 or more than $500 for each such violation. Each day during which the violation continues shall be deemed a separate violation. Compulsory Control Acts When the President as the Democratic nominee outlined his ideas for agricultural relief in a speech at Topeka, Kansas, in September, 1932, he asserted that "the plan must be, insofar as possible, voluntary." The fiction of voluntary agreements, maintained in the law with respect to adjustment contracts, is dropped in the compulsory control acts relating to cotton, tobacco and potatoes. In each of these three laws the power of taxation is used to control production. The amount to be marketed by each producer is definitely under the control of the AAA bureaucracy. Freedom of individuals in farm management is severely restricted. Constitutionality of all three laws is seriously in doubt. The Bankhead Cotton Control Act and the Kerr Tobacco Control Act were extended for two additional seasons in the amendments to the Agricultural Adjustment Act approved in August, 1935. The Potato Act, incorporated in the same law, is indefinite as to its period of operation, being dependent upon a majority vote of producers in advance of each season after 1936. Under the Cotton Control Act the Secretary of Agriculture fixes the maximum amount of cotton which may be marketed tax-free. The total is apportioned among states, counties and individual farmers. A tax is imposed amounting to half the average market price of cotton as computed by the Secretary. Tax-exemption certificates are issued to the amount of the quotas. The Tobacco Control Act imposes a tax equal to a maximum of one third of the selling price in the first sale of tobacco. Producers contracting with the Secretary concerning tobacco production receive tax-exemption warrants for quotas allotted to them. 11 Under the Potato Act a tax of 45 cents per bushel applies on the first sale of all potatoes, an exemption being granted up to the amount of quotas. Regulations for issuance of permits and for stamping of packages must be complied with without exception but the quotas for those who have raised heretofore less than five bushels cannot be reduced. The Secretary of Agriculture determines the total to be marketed tax-free by states, counties and individual farmers. Purchasers as well as sellers of potatoes lacking the necessary stamps or improperly packaged are subject to fines and jail sentences. The authority conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture to make allotments to states, counties and individuals offers an opportunity for political favoritism. This is one of the dangers in the vesting of broad powers in an executive official. The compulsory control acts constitute regimentation of agriculture comparable to that which accompanies economic planning in European countries. While the objective in such a country as Russia may be to raise more rather than less food, in both instances the lives and activities of farmers are regulated by the central government. Socialistic Enterprises A recent official announcement told of the transfer of the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation from the Federal Emergency Relief Administration to the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and a change in its name to the Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation. This is one of the corporations formed under the laws of Delaware with power to do many things entirely outside of any authority under Federal laws. It is proposed to use the corporation chiefly for the purchase and disposal of surplus farm products. Examination of the charter of the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation as filed in Delaware in November, 1933, discloses authority to conduct an amazing variety of Socialistic enterprises. The charter authorizes the corporation to purchase and sell all sorts of agricultural commodities, to engage in any activity in connection with the production, carrying, shipping, storing, exporting, warehousing, handling, preparing, manufacturing, processing and marketing of both agricultural and other commodities and products thereof. 12 The corporation may engage in extensive banking operations. It may borrow money, issue bonds, debentures and mortgages. It may loan money, buy, discount, sell, rediscount, or otherwise deal in notes, acceptances, warehouse receipts, and other evidences of debt. It may purchase or lease real estate anywhere in the United States. It may maintain offices not only anywhere in the United States but in any foreign country. There appears to be no limit to the character of business enterprises in which the corporation may engage. It need make no report to the Congress which apparently has no control over its activities. All of this was planned more than two years ago. Anything so Socialistic as the Government-owned enterprises which might be launched by this corporation at the instance of the AAA most definitely shows a positive plan to tear down the American form of government and to defy the Constitution. Referenda Officials of the AAA repeatedly refer to the referenda conducted under the terms of the various agricultural laws as proof that the "new order" is based on democratic principles. The questions relating to continuance of adjustment programs involving payment of cash benefits to farmers have been so phrased that it would be surprising indeed if the results were other than favorable. Furthermore, through the machinery provided by county agents, farm committees and agents of the AAA, as well as the free distribution facilities available for Government literature, the AAA has been able to dominate the elections. Without a tremendous fund no critics of the program could possibly reach the farmers with effective arguments as to adverse economic consequences. A favorable vote for continuance of the Bank-head Cotton Control Act was assured when the President announced support of amendments exempting small farmers producing not more than two bales each. When Hitler held an election after suppressing all political parties other than the Nazi Party, the resulting vote of confidence was a foregone conclusion. It would be almost as difficult to obtain an adverse vote in an AAA referendum. 13 Economic Effects The underlying purpose of the change in the American form of government is to permit experimentation with the economic theories of those responsible for the "new order." These theories, involving a tyrannically controlled production, are inconsistent with the freedom characteristic of American institutions. Therefore, if they are to be tried, our governmental system must be changed. The results thus far have shown the fallacy of these theories, just as economists of the highest standing have maintained would be the case. J. Evetts Haley of the University of Texas has well stated the effects of what he terms "complete regimentation of the agricultural field, and a corresponding change in the American way of life." In an article entitled "The Cows in the Cotton Patch" published in western newspapers, Mr. Haley warns of difficulties already confronting the cattle-raising industry which is not as yet under AAA control and thus has been unduly expanded due to restrictions applied to other farm commodities. "The unplanned results of the planners are coming in with the bills, and the dislocations of our national economy are just now beginning to be felt," says Mr. Haley. "The center of meat production is shifting south and east, following the growth of feed. Peter Moly-neaux, Editor of the Texas Weekly, notes the increase in Texas production and suggests coastal packing houses to process and ship southern hogs to eastern markets; Dr. George W. Carver, famed agriculturist of Tuskegee Institute, says cattle are supplanting cotton in the South; and in distant Wisconsin Dr. Glenn Prank raises his voice to warn the dairy interests of the potentialities of other regions. Nor are these wild predictions. Already the cows are in the cotton patch, and only the western cowman and the corn-belt feeder will worry about who is a-going to get them out. "Yet this is the ruthless, unavoidable sequence of the plan for abundance through scarcity, this so-called agricultural adjustment. Control of one big crop means control of all; planning for agriculture means planning for the other industries. It happened with peanuts and potatoes, and now nature's inevitable cycle moves on the upgrade to a vast surplus of beef. The western producer can read the signs as he rides; prices in the West will be scaled down through the pressure of great herds from the South. This is neither planning, nor balance, nor adjustment, but plain economic bungling, disturbance, and impending disruption, with none of the 14 commendable, shock-absorbing features of the easy, natural readjustments of our economic life. "Will Mr. Wallace permit the western range man and the corn-belt feeder to hold his business by meeting this southern expansion? The past history of the AAA, as well as its uncertain future, poses the negative answer. To do so means defeat of the whole scheme. The outcome must be more and more control. Already his machinery for handling the situation exists through the cattle adjustment contracts extended to the western range through the medium of drought relief. Through the cattle killing program, and the payment of bonuses, more than 700,000 ranchmen and farmers, in 24 range states, signed a contract to 'cooperate with further general programs pertaining to the adjustment or reduction of production . . . which may be preferred by the Secretary.' Furthermore, they agreed 'to abide by and conform to regulations and administrative rulings' relating to the agreements 'hereafter prescribed by the Secretary.' It hardly seems rash to predict that the 'hereafter' is near at hand. Will the blanket contract be invoked to hold western production in check, when the South can produce at its own free will? "Whatever may be Mr. Wallace's philosophical rejoinder, the meat producers of the West must face these grim facts, as well as a foreign trade steadily mounting in their disfavor. . . . "In the simple idiom of the range, these cows in the cotton patch are being bred by the Bankhead 'outfit,' running the AAA brand. The mavericks haven't been tallied; the count still isn't in. The big herds are to be 'punched' by the political cowboys, riding the New Deal range." The injurious effects noted by Mr. Haley with respect to the cattle situation are typical of results under AAA policies. They could not have occurred under a program which adhered to constitutional principles. American farmers have long constituted a self-respecting and liberty-loving group outstanding in sturdiness. But from calamities, economic and financial, as well as from flood and drought these farmers were brought in many cases to actual poverty and suffering. That government officials should sympathize with the farmers in their disaster and strain fiscal resources in efforts toward relief was commendable. But the distress of the farmers was seized upon as a political opportunity and used to force them into the signing of agreements, curtailing their inherited liberty of action, fixing their status as pauperized recipients of charity, infringing upon their very self-respect and reducing them to a condition where the President of the United States could say with obvious chagrin that if the