Professor Zimmerman Denounces A.A.A. Program and Reduced Crop Production, Agrees With Decision of Court

Denouncing the A.A.A. program for having "endangered our food supply, reduced consumption, and opened the avenue for future monopolies in which the farmer and rich processor would be able to gouge the consumer" Carle C. Zimmerman, Associate Professor of Sociology, recently returned from a White House visit at which he discussed the A.A.A. with President Roosevelt, yesterday hailed the Supreme Court decision with optimism.

At the same time, John W. Boldyreff, Assistant in Sociology and likewise a vacation guest at the Roosevelt household, mildly lamented the passing of what he called "a blunder in the right direction."

Crop Restriction Now Unnecessary

Professor Zimmerman's statement indicated that he believed the government would still be called upon to provide farm relief in some form, but that the ploughing under of cotton and potatoes as an aid to regulating prices is a thing of the past.

"American farmers will continue to expect some kind of governmental aid. I believe that they will be given some kind of subsidy because they held the balance of power in our bi-party system. I believe that some kind of aid is due them because they produce and rear the great bulk of the citizens of the United States. For instance, in 1930 farm people had twice as many children per 1000 women 15 to 45 years of age as did the cities.

"Furthermore, farm families perform a great public service by taking care of many relatives during the depression. In 1929 there were 30,257,000 people on farms in the United States, but by 1935 this had grown to 32,779,000, an increase of two and a half million people. Finally, the soil which is the source of our food supply has to be conserved.

"However, the question of the type of aid to be given the farmers is important. I object to the A.A.A. because it has raised prices, reduced consumption, made exports less than they would have been, has taxed the poor man in the city more than the wealthy, has endangered our food supply, and has opened the avenue for future monopolies in which the farmer and the rich processor would be able to gouge the consumer.

"I believe that we should now say to the farmer that the chief help which he will get from the Government will be in the shape of security from eviction from his homes and from his farms, reduced interest rates on the mortgages of the poor farmers, and reduced taxation. If the Federal Government were to say to the farmer We will give you these kinds of subsidies. I think that most of the reasonable farmers will feel satisfied, particularly since they have already been given higher prices during the last three years and a billion dollars in processing taxes to help them to get over the bad conditions prior to 1933.

"I think that we should be particularly interested in helping the poor farmer more than the rich ones. I believe that we should be interested primarily in the farmer who tills the soil and not in the absentee landlord. I believe that the A.A.A. so far has done a great deal of good and not done a great deal of harm. However, in the long run, I feel that crop restriction is unjust to the consumer and will eventually destroy commercialized farming itself.

"However, I feel that we are justified in helping the farmer and can do it by giving him security, lower interest rates, and reduced taxes. This will please the farmer and the consumer and will enable us to regain our export markets. It will also not be particularly expensive contrasted with the direct and indirect costs of crop restriction."

Boldyreff Denies Unconstitutionality

Dr. Boldyreff, though refusing to comment on the White House discussion of the A.A.A., upheld the constitutionality of the agricultural program in the face of the Supreme Court decision.

"The case was decided not on the grounds of constitutional rights," he stated, "but on the basis of past decisions by the Supreme Court. Precedent rather than the Constitution determined the issue."