# crop destruction

DENTON JOURNAL Page 4 PUBLISHED BVBRY SATURDAY BY MELVIN JOHNSON INCORPORATED BENJAMIN F. JOHNSON, President ud TrtMnrw UARY MELVIN, - Vlc*-PnÂ«ldÂ«it ud Secratur. Batored Â·( tie PMtoffln (t Dcnton. nrrmrt dÂ»Â« mail nutter. Saturday Morning, December 11. 1937 DISTRIBUTE. DON'T DESTROY CROPS Congress is not dealing with farm legislation to meet an emergency, but Is seeking to establish a permanent policy for agriculture. Things which may be justified to meet an emergency emergency may be extremely unwise as permanent policy. It does not seem to me that compulsory reduction of crops, in other words compulsory destruction destruction of foodstuffs, has any place in a sound permanent agricultural policy. In this country we have mil lions, literally millions, in great need of those things which it is proposed "by some that we destroy. We ouph to thank our farmers every day of our lives for the energy and industry and intelligence which gives this country a surplus and devote ourselves to finding finding a wise method of distributing that surplus rather than destroy?rp it. This surplus of foodstuffs belongs in the stomachs of American Children millions of whom are undernourished and poorly clad, and in the homes and cupboards of millions of families. It is wicked to penalize the farmer, 10 put him in a straight-jacket, for pro ducing that which the American pen pie sorely need but which we have not yet found a way to distribute. II the American people as a whole could have the necessities of life, then would not be any overproductoin up on the farm. Our task of legislatini is not destruction but distribution. If it is found necessary to draw upon upon the public treasury in order to deal with the farm problem, I would rath er support a measure to buy up am store the surplus and see that it gets to those in need of it, rather tlian to buy destruction. It has been dem onstrated that if the American people people as a whole could enjoy a decent standard of living, they would nee. at least ten million more food pro ducing acres to meet the demand. We are told that we are now fcl- lowing the plan, in a measure, ol that inspired Hebrew leader who thousands of years ago in Egypt, un dertook to deal with surpluses. Bui there was no curtailment of produc tion, no reduction of production in Joseph's scheme. Joseph had man} strange dreams but he never dreams of destroying foodstuffs. The centra idea of Joseph's plan was production and distribution at the right time and under the proper circumstances. We have a surplus in this countr} not because of producing more thai we need but because a vast prop-n tion of our people have not the means to buy what they ought to have. Yo can go into millions of American homes, not relief homes, either, and you will find the housewife cutting ou the meat supply more and more days in the week, skimping here and there on food, keeping more children out o school because they are undernour ished. While that condition prevail in this country, I feel we ought to find some way to deal with the matte rather than by compulsory reduction of foodstuffs. Lef us consider this question from another viewpoint. The able Secretarj of Agriculture, Mr. Wallace, spoke a while ago at Memphis on the Cotton control question. Mr. Wallace is to- candid to discuss effectively a reduc tion scheme. It appears that since we began cotton reduction and control ' foreign nations have increased the! cotton supply by more than ten mil lion bales. When we advertise to the world that- we are going to reduce our acreage in any world commodity it excites other nations to increase their acreage, which other nations art now doing. The cotton producer is in almost as serious a condition n w a? he ever experienced. What has happened happened to the cotton grower will inevitably inevitably happen to those who pro duce wheat and corn under the same policy. Our good neighbor, Canada will put in two additional acres of wheat for every acre we reduce. Oui good neighbor on the south, Argentina, Argentina, will do likewise with referer.c to corn; and with our trade agreements agreements opening our markets to this increased production abroad, where will the American farmer finallj land? Another thing which our candid Secretary of Agriculture states, in effect, effect, is that as America's share of the world's cotton crop continues to du crease, we must make from time to time, reduction of acreage in order to maintain prices. In other words the philosophy of reduction neces i- tates continued reduction. Between the upper and the nether millstones of increased production abroad ana decreased production at home, the American farmer will not only Us; the foreign market but will have i fight for his life in the home market --Sen. Borah in Rural Progress Magazine. Magazine. BETWEEN WAR AND PEACE From the Washington Angle by F.B.B No so much on the floor of Congress Congress as in the cloakrooms and in the personal statements of members, the attention of Washington is turning to the question of how big, what kind and how expensive an army and navy this country needs. TBere is one question on which there is no doubt that the country is united, and that is that we want what is usually called "adequate defense.' But coupled with present enormous expenditures for military purposes the recent demands of the navy for more battleships, and the President's reference in his Chicago speech tc the danger of our being attacked ave all tended to raise the question f exactly what we want to defend nd what we need in order to defend t. The only national defense policy ve have at present is the one laid down by the navy itself which calls or defense of our commerce and in- erests in any part of the world and jpens the -way for any amount of in- :reases in naval appropriations. The whole trend of congressional and public opinion, however, is gainst fighting wars in foreign lands and foreign waters to protect the financial financial interests of a few citizens. There is now in Congress a bill call- ng upon Congress, instead of the navy, to decide what our defense policy policy shall be. But it is the question of attack on this country that is important, for nsofar as the people can be alarmed on thU point, military and naval appropriations appropriations will be easy to gut. As it happens, high officers of the army and navy are agreed that the United States itself is practically invluner- able against an invading force. Rear Admiral W. W. Phelps declares, "Of course there is no possibility of a hostile hostile attack on cither of our coasts." General Hugh S. Johnson has said, "There is no great power that could invade continental United States." Major-Gencral Douglas MacArthur regards an attack on American ports as -impossible. Admiral William S. Sims maintained no foreign power or group of powers can operate across the oceans and stand a chance in combat combat with forces operated from the norne base. Major-General Smedley D. Butler calculates that an invading nation would have to bring over a million men and use seven and one- fialf million tons of ocean-going craft to transport supplies, whereas the whole merchant marine of the world totals only three and one-half million tons. "In "The Tragic Fallacy," the author, author, Mauditz Halgren, has brought together the facts behind these statements. statements. In the World War with the protection of the combined alliec navies, and with the ports of France and England freely open to us, and all possible aid from those countries for the troops when they landed, we were never able to get more than ibout 300,000 men to Europe in one month. For any foreign power to bring 300,000 men and the necessary supplies over here would require 580 merchant vessels. An invading party of even 50,000 men would require 50 vessels in order to have supplies for ten weeks. How could even 50 vessels get across the ocean in nny sort of order even if we had no means of attacking attacking them off our coast? And if they got across the ocean, where would they land? Not at any large harbor, for the navy itself admits that we do not even need battleships to protect our important harbors, because because their land fortifications are sufficient. sufficient. If a foreign expedition attempted attempted to land on a remote and unfortified unfortified stretch of shore, it is easy to see how long it would take it to unload, hovv helpless it would be even if all the men got to land, and how relatively small an American force eould overcome them as they landed. As for airplane attack, Major-Genera] Major-Genera] Johnson Hagood, who holds that the United States can easily be made invulnerable against attack, points out that to do any considerable damage damage air forces must be concentrated and operate from a convenient base. To disrupt seriously the life of this country there would need to be simultaneous simultaneous attacks at many points. The dropping of a few bombs here and there or even considerable destruction in one or two coast towns would lead to no result unless backed up by an invading army which has been shown to be impossible. Authorities admit that against air attacks there is no defense except counter attacks which duplicate but do not prevent the damage. damage. It is difficult to see for what reason reason this government would adopt policies that would so injure or enrage enrage other nations that they would undertake a futile air raid. The time seems extcremely remote when airplanes can cross the ocean, attack, and return home. If they are not able to make the return trip without without landing, the air forces of any foreign power would soon be exhausted. exhausted. The moral of all this is simple. Talk of danger of attack on this country country can be for one purpose only--to increase army and navy appropriations, appropriations, or to lead into a re-armament program for the purpose of giving a false impression of industrial activity, such as was discussed in this column last week. hink they should have something to say. Like small business men they uinpluin that they are "burdened" with taxation. Taxation of capital !Â·Â« iust reaching the point where it i ut a fow stops ahead of confiscation, s the verdict of heads of great corporations. corporations. The rebuttal is that the great industries industries pass on a large share of taxes to the public--u reasonable supposition supposition when the Secretary of Agriculture Agriculture insists that the processing taxes under the AAA were "passed on" to the public; reasonable, too, when the President said in September that consumers' taxes represented .'tO per cent of the .national revenue in 1929 and 60 per cent today. Likely 90 per cent of the people the United States would be better stisfied if Government expenses were reduceil from 10 to 25 per cent. everybody could look fonvard to a balanced budget and a reduction of the national debt in the way President Coolidge 'and Secretary of the Treasury Treasury Mellon trimmed it down ten bil lion dollars. What was done by can be done again. Men like Senators Bailey, Glass others keep telling how it can be accomplished.--J. E. Jon:s. GOOD ROADS AND GOOD LIVING A road can make or break a It wields a tremendous influence in his life. It carries him forward, if is a good road, to success and the attainment of a happy and well-rounded life. It bogs him do%vn, if it is u bad road, and he drops far behind his neighbors in the pursuit of a better life; it retards his ambitions and decreases his usefulness, it mires his ability to earn and lowers his standard standard of living. A few months ago in the postoffice of a small North Carolina town I across two young men that I had seen in a long time. I had met and their farmer fathers eleven years ago on a trip through the state as CRITICISM IN REVERSE When the expenses of running the Government ran up to $3,000,000,000 annually a few years ago the cry of "extravagance" rang out through the land, and now the appropriations arc in excess af$9,000,000,000. The point is, said Senator Bailey, of North Carolina, Carolina, speaking about these great expenditures: expenditures: "We do not need a sales tax, but we will have to have one if we keep on spending money. We do not need to broaden the base of the income tax, but we will have to broaden broaden it if we keep on spending money." A few days earlier President Roosevelt Roosevelt in his opening message to the present Congress advised "special consideration to lighten inequitable burdens on the enterprise of the small business men of the Nation." The North Carolinian, who ranks very high among his Democratic colleagues colleagues believes that burdens of taxation taxation should be lightened in all--large and small businesses and in the interests interests of every taxpayer. Here's an instance in which criticism goes into reverse. "If there is a sentiment in United States against these taxes, the thing for us to do is to inform that sentiment that it must support the men in the House of Representatives and in the Senate who stand here and demand a reduction of expenditure. That is the only way to get out of it." So, there you arc--good reader. A Senator who talks as though he might be a statesman tells us that if you give your orders to Congress that you will be obeyed. There is still another side\to taxation. taxation. The big business 'interests also highway engineer. Although thcst young men live only a few miles apart, the farm on which each born and brought up has its own secondary-road access to the main highway highway that leads to town and the beyond. One of these secondary roadf is a good road, properly constructs and periodically maintained. The oth er is a deplorable collection of ruts that %vould not justify the name o cowpath. The same condition exLs'ci eleven years ago. The two young men came into pr.stoffice separately. As I talked to the first one, I learned that he college graduate with special training in journalism. He told me of plant to publish the town's first weekly newspaper. He was eager, well-spok en and forceful. He is the son of farmer who lives on the good secondary secondary road. The other young man was and unimpressive when I talked to him. He was cmbarrased at his of- conversational ability. I asked what he was doing and he said. "Nothing much, I guess." He did get to finish grammar school. He in a rut and has no destination. is the. son of the farmer who lives the secondary road. He is- the of eleven wasted years that can be blamed on the unpardonable condition condition of a road that has continued keep him isolated from the good things of life. His is the pitiful of a boy deprived of schooling by impassability of the road in front his home that prevented the school bus from picking him up and carry ing him with the other children to the centralized school fifteen miles away. His is the sad tale of a man without funds to obtain outside education in the form of profession or trada because a bad road has continued to defeat his father's efforts to get his produce to a market, comparatively speaking, only a stone's throw away. The question today is the same it was eleven years ago. Do our lawmakers unmistakably realize that they legislate a better life for their fellowmen, their own neighbors and their neighbors' children, when they legislate money for the construction and maintenance of good roads proper administrative expenditure? Have our legislators bee-n convinced that good roads bring about good living conditions? WHAT PRICE HASTE As the year's best safety slogan, would propose the following, gleaned from a message of Marshall De to California Rotary Clubs: "As ye would that others should toward you, Drive ye even so toward them." And for runner-up, this from the "Daily Traascript" of Holyoke, Massachusetts: "The car to watch is the car the car in front of you." Both arc to the point that, like charity and a multitude of other things of the spirit, sane driving begins at home. Of course, accidents always caused by the other fellow, nonetheless the victim--while recovering--might recovering--might often with profit ask himself whether it would have happened happened if he hadn't, well, been in unnecessary hurry. Or better yet, before the accident happens, he could do a bit of moralizing about this experiment carried out by the Detroit police: Two cars were sent on a 12-mile course through the city. One driver was instructed to hurry--to cut through traffic lanes, to cross intersections while lights were changing, anything to get Â· to the destination first. The other driver was to drive like a gentleman. .He did--and came in second. The reckless driver arrived three minutes ahead of him; he had picked precisely 15 seconds per mile. HOUSING PLANS "Big business men" have been viewing the "welcome.", on the White House doormat again. The main subject that they have, discussed with the President was "housing." New building plans .for homes have the Government and private industrialists as backers and promoters. The big idea is that if (most)