Battle Joined

Last week, with the House opening its debate on farm relief, the political situation began to crystallize in definite form, on definite issues, as it had not done in all the previous five months of this session of Congress. Political observers began to see that such an issue may arise as has not risen in the last two years, that the seeds of major political developments may be about to germinate. The reasons are:

It is May. Congressmen of both Houses want to adjourn comparatively soon. All of the Representatives and more than one-third of the Senators are face to face with a Sphinxlike ballot box. There is a public buildings bill, a bill for increasing the pay of Federal judges, a bill for disposing of Muscle Shoals, bills for future handling of railroad and coal strikes, the French debt settlement, and above all farm relief--all clamoring for consideration. A first-rate legislative jam seems in the making, with the probability that many of these measures will not pass. And although Congressmen are eager to go home, they do not want to return to dissatisfied electorates. Their personal interests are beginning to shriek in their ears. Who knows what they may not be driven to?

The farm relief problem centres on two bills. The Tincher bill (supported by the Administration) carries $100,000,000 to be lent as a revolving fund to farmers' cooperatives to aid them in solving their crop surplus problems. The Haugen bill (opposed by the Administration, demanded by many farm interests), carries a fund of $375,000,000, which contemplates Government purchase of farm surpluses in emergency to maintain domestic prices, and will impose (after two years) a tax on farm products to provide for losses in the use of the fund.

If the farmers' demand were not insistent, it is doubtful whether the Administration would ever have favored the Tincher bill, because there is some doubt whether the revolving fund will revolve or will merely fritter away into frozen loans. Many farmers do not want their co-operatives to be saddled with these loans, much preferring a gift of $375,000,000 at once, and then a division of any losses above that by means of the tax against all producers.

The Democrats as a whole are apparently intent on taking the latter attitude. The situation is complicated for the Administration by the fact that many of its supporters are likely to take the same stand. Already last week eleven Republican Senators got together at luncheon to root for the farmer in a way that forebodes their voting for the Haugen bill or something similar. Among the eleven were several whose votes the Administration cannot normally count on: Norbeck, Norris, Howell, Johnson, McMaster, Frazier. But among them were also several normal regulars: Gooding, Watson, Cummins, Deneen, McNary. The first three of the latter were up for reelection. Mr. Cummins in particular, faced Senator Brookhart, "the farmers' friend." But the politics of the situation reaches even further than the election of 1926--it reaches to 1928. Frank O. Lowden of Illinois was on hand in Washington, openly advocating farm relief of the Haugen type:

"In my opinion, legislation which does not contemplate the ultimate handling of all principal farm products, through cooperatives, with some device such as an equalization fee*; to distribute the costs incident to handling the surplus among all the producers of the particular commodity, will not afford genuine and permanent relief."

The whole situation is based on hypothesis. If a bill of the Haugen type is passed, the President will have the alternative of vetoing it. If farm depression continues, Mr. Lowden (staunch Republican with eyes to the West) and whatever Democrats and Republicans stood for the Haugen bill, will have a first-rate issue in 1928. By contrary, if the President should approve such a bill, the Government would probably get into financial hot water before 1928.

*"Equalization fee" is the name applied to the tax above referred to.