Furrows

It was political planting time in the farm belt. On the same day last week, both presidential candidates climbed on a tractor-drawn flatbed wagon, rode around Henry Snow's gently rolling land in Dodge County, Minn., and sowed the seed from which they hope to reap the farm vote. The occasion was the National Plowing Contest, and 40,000 Mackinawed and jacketed residents of the farm country came to see the new machines, the tests of plowing skill (contour & level land) and the candidates.

A Specific General. Dwight Eisenhower came first. Ike, who had been accused of speaking in generalities, was as specific as a candidate could be. He left no doubt about 1) what he is against, 2) what he is for, and 3) the differences he sees between his program and Democratic practice. Most U.S. agricultural laws, said Ike, are based on the principle that farmers themselves should have much to say about management of the programs. "But what happened? Do you have a voice that carries weight with the Washington agricultural autocrats? Or should I call them 'agricrats?' . . . You've seen them grow cynical and arrogant . . . Systematically they have tried to use the vast powers of the Federal Government to make the farmer a political captive.

"You don't have to look far for evidence. The case is now perfectly clear in the grain-storage hoax of 1948. It is a story of perversion of Government responsibilities and powers -the story of a giant federal farm agency, backed by the people's dollars, deliberately driving down the price of grain to instill fear in the minds of farmers. It is a story of a Government agency spreading panic--using press, radio and speeches to paint a picture ... a false picture ... of the lack of storage space for grain.

"You were told at Dexter, Iowa in 1948* that the 80th Congress had prevented the Administration from providing storage bins for farmers. You were further told that this would make it impossible for many of you to get price-support loans.

"The facts are now well known--and here they are: 1) the 80th Congress did not prevent the Commodity Credit Corporation from furnishing storage to farmers for their grain; 2) there was no shortage of storage space; 3) contrary to the implication, the Commodity Credit Corporation never has furnished storage to farmers--it hadn't before and it has not since; 4) the Commodity Credit Corporation was selling its own grain bins as surplus at the very moment the Democrat candidate accused the Republicans of having 'stuck a pitchfork in the farmer's back.' Now, who actually stuck that pitchfork in your back? It was none other than the Democrat Administration itself."

"Pure Bunk." In 1952, said Ike, the Democrats are trying to scare the farmers again by telling them that "the Republicans will pull the rug out from under you." Said he: "I have an answer . . . Bunk! Pure bunk! . . . And here & now without any ifs or buts, I say to you that I stand behind--and the Republican Party stands behind--the price-support laws now on the books. This includes the amendment to the basic farm act, passed by votes of both parties in Congress, to continue through 1954 the price supports on basic commodities at 90% of parity ... I firmly believe that agriculture is entitled to a fair, full share of the national income . . . And a fair share is not merely 90% of parity--but full parity."

For the future, Ike wanted a new farm law written by 1954, with the help of a bipartisan farm commission, to give farmers a greater voice, decentralize authority to states, counties and districts. A big need, he said, is some price protection for perishable foods, such as meat, milk, fruit and eggs. Said he: "They keep saying, 'There is no way of protecting perishables except through the Brannan Plan.' We can and will find a sound way to do the job without indulging in the moral bankruptcy of the Brannan Plan."

90 Seconds. Just 90 seconds after the last of Ike's caravan of cars pulled away from the Snow farm, the first of Adlai Stevenson's entered. On the same raised platform at one end of an 18-acre field, he gave the Democratic Party credit for the advances U.S. farmers have made since he worked for the Agricultural Adjustment Administration back in the "desolate days of 1933."

He stood, "without squirming," on the Democratic platform's pledge to continue the 90% of parity program. He, too, was for decentralization of the program and for more farmer participation in management. He also thought there should be a support program for perishables, and he hopes that "ways will be found." He did not mention the Brannan Plan.

In his best form, Adlai threw a whole handful of barbs at the Republicans and their candidate: "There are, of course, as you all know, two Republican parties; two for agriculture, as well as two . . . for foreign policy and almost everything else. And I observed here this morning that my distinguished opponent, General Eisenhower, evidently concluded to plow under the Republican platform altogether.

"Now, as you all know, the Chicago slaughter finally ended in a cease-fire agreement . . . According to that agreement, which is better known as the Republican platform, Republican policy is aimed--and I quote the word--Republican policy is 'aimed' at parity levels . . . There is, my friends, and no one should know it better than my distinguished opponent, a vast difference between aiming at a target and hitting it. Now I should like to know how good is their aim anyway?

"Their sights were a mile off last June, when more than half of the Republican members of the House of Representatives voted against the law that extended price supports at 90% of parity through 1954. If the Republican candidate says one thing, and the Republican platform says something else, and the Republican members of Congress say still other things--how can anyone tell what a Republican Administration would actually do in Washington?"

At Henry Snow's farm, the 1952 presidential candidates had come as close to a debate as they are likely to get. The day's performance marked another milestone in the campaign: Dwight Eisenhower had shown that he can deal clearly, specifically and forcefully with the intricate details of a purely domestic, nonmilitary issue.

* By Harry Truman, in a speech later credited with swinging thousands of farm-belt votes to the Democrats. ,

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.