The Bismarck Tribune

Editorial Comment
Editorials printed below show the trend of thought by other editors. They are published without regard to whether they agree or disagree with The Tribune's policies.
No Rest for the Farm Board
(New York Times)
For the Federal Farm Board life is one long series of complications. As if it did not have sufficient troubles of its own, Congress threatens to add to its misfortunes. A resolution adopted by the House, and approved by the Senate in somewhat different form, authorizes the free distribution of 40,000,000 bushels of government-owned wheat for relief of distress, but makes no provision for repayment. This would compel the board to accept a loss of about $30,000,000, since it purchased its grain at prices approximately 40 per cent above the present level, and Chairman Stone vigorously complains that it is "unfair to take the wheat away without paying for it."
Meantime, a new difficulty has appeared in still another quarter. Moved by a desire to reduce expenditures, and thereby to help balance the Federal budget, committees of congress have been pruning the various appropriation bills submitted by the administration. They have cut deeply into the funds allotted to the Farm Board. In the House a reduction from $1,800,000 to $1,000,000 has been made in the board's appropriation for administrative purposes, and in the Senate a bill has been reported favorably, marking down the salaries of members of the board from $12,000 to $9,600. Commenting on the latter proposal, Mr. Stone objects that to single out the Farm Board for special action while leaving salaries in other bureaus undisturbed would give the impression that Congress did not think highly of its record. This would seem a fair deduction.
What is proposed by the action of the two committees is in reality a half-hearted decision, first to dissipate the large stock of surplus wheat which the Farm Board holds (at a cost to the public of more than $200,000 a month for storage and carrying charges), and, second, to liquidate the board itself. Both purposes are desirable; but instead of taking indirect and unfair methods to achieve them, it would be better to proceed straight to the objective. The board has outlived its usefulness.