Schedule 7

The farmer, supposedly, is the motive power behind the current legislative enterprise to revise the tariff. Had he not made loud complaints and evoked campaign promises of a domestic market wholly protected for his produce, it is doubtful if the House Ways & Means Committee would now be. hearing pleas for duty changes at all

Last week the Committee reached Schedule 7--the agricultural section--of the Tariff Act of 1922. Into the Committee room in the House Office Building strode, not the farmers themselves, but their hired lobbyists, suave, well-garbed, soft-spoken gentlemen, prosperous on their fees. They came to make the farmers' argument. Here and there a "dirt farmer" (as he always carefully introduced himself) would get in by mistake, but by and large the touch and feel of the soil was noticeably lacking from the agricultural witnesses who journeyed from New York and Chicago offices, from chambers of commerce, from large co-operative marketing centres.

Many a Congressman, too, drifted into the hearing to do special battle for some pet product grawn in his district.

Practically all the clamor was for increased duties. Chester H. Gray, chief lobbyist of the American Farm Bureau Federation, called for general upward revisions averaging 100% higher than present rates on agricultural commodities. The argument, in effect, was: "We want these rates--because we want them." Few if any witnesses paused long enough on the stand to give reasons, to detail the difficulties of foreign competition, comparative costs of production. The fanner's attitude was that he was entitled to these increases by virtue of his vote for Herbert Hoover and that technical explanations were nonessential.

Unexpected products held the spotlight. Instead of a storm about corn, fresh tomatoes caused a furore. Mexican production was described as a menace. Italian growers were paying their hired help 43-c- a day compared to labor cost of 25 to 35-c- an hour in the U. S.

The split-pea industry was seriously threatened by importations from China. A Port Huron, Mich., witness extolled the power-producing qualities of U. S.. split-pea soup. In a test, he said, cross-country runners were fed for 16 days on split-pea soup and they got 65 miles to the gallon.

Turnips, celery and onions were hotly discussed. Congressman Fish (New York) pleaded with the Committee to give special attention to a high duty on celery grown under glass, as many of his constituents, celery growers, were existing only on Red Cross bounty. . . . Congressman Gifford (Massachusetts) describing himself as a Cape Cod turnip raiser, wanted the rates on this commodity hoisted from 12 to 50-c- to shut out Canadian importations. Georgia's Crisp begged for better treatment of peanuts in the next tariff act. Maine's Hersey grew damp-eyed as he told of the plight of the potato producers in his State.

Thus it went until some 260 "farm" witnesses had been heard, each revealing some angle of the misery and distress of citizens of their incomparably prosperous country.