Search America's historic newspaper pages from 1756-1963 or use the U.S. Newspaper Directory to find information about American newspapers published between 1690-present. Chronicling America is sponsored jointly by the National Endowment for the Humanities external link and the Library of Congress. Learn more
Image provided by: Montana Historical Society; Helena, MT
Newspaper Page Text
/ . .. . M ;4*v I I & mt. ■ y' ; .v ; : : , -vV: yÿ : : ? : H i issÊmiÊ - M : y y y y* •m . -y fM ■ t WÊÊÊÊà m ' ; y ' y y- m y - yx 1 - gcjâ fÜ y? . ■■ >:'■ < ' ß ' o:':< : pM y : y j y-. •' yy >y; : m W} : ■ ; : :y Ï.V "rtf f y Iteit WÊÊÊ. ■V M m y & . ;y » 'iëm •y . y yy m 1 y. : ' ■ : ■ > ' y ;;>■ - & ' V ■ ■ ïM r Living More :' ; y Ü r :; ?£ Brand there is With extra When you farm more efficiently, you operate profitably and live more comfortably. With • • equipment. Hundreds no need to of farmers are enjoying the trouble-free operation of a new tractor thanks to extra profits from more good management your land can provide a higher standard of living. Good management includes using Elephant Brand fertilizer. Extra profits from Elephant Brand can buy extra equipment to make your work easier and more efficient— a new truck or tractor, for instance. Elephant Brand. Everyone has a list of "things he'd like to have"—a new car—home improve ments—a college education for his children. Ele phant Brand offers a practical way to get them. I IT PAYS TO CHOOSE FROM THE ELEPHANT BRAND LINE nitbAPRILLS(33.5 0-0) I 16 20 0 111-48-0 I AMMONIUM SULPHATE(21-0-0) Xv. . y--' >y 1 24-20-0 27-14-0 16-48-0 23-23-0 13-39-0 1 I m I UREA (45-0-0) ; y 14-14-7 13-13-13 10-30-10 8-32-16 :ÿ: IC Elephant Brand ti Ü s|ii »I m y ; 9 I. water soluble j-» from your land with elephant brand MORE GET 1413 rOMINCO PRODUCTS. INC., SPOKANE, WASHINGTON. AGENTS FOR ELEPHANT BRAND FERTILIZERS: BALFOUR. GUTHRIE & CO. LIMITED — SEATTLE — PORTLAND — SPOKANE — MINNEAPOLIS EXCLUSIVE U.S. SALES SAN FRANCISCO — LOS ANGELES Control Is Needed THOSE LETTERS IN your March 1 issue are interesting and somewhat amusing, too, as regards our wheat allotment program and so-called con trols. First, the gentleman from over in McCone county seems to have forgot ten something in drawing attention to that "slip of the law" in 1953 when we were permitted to "slap in" all our acres into wheat without penalty. It did have a penalty for a lot of us who had been "trained" into following the principle of self-control, both for ourselves and our neighbors—we were patriotic. But the "wise birds" or free enterprizers jumped in, cashed in on those control-induced prices of that time, and, on top of the deal, vastly increased their wheat "history". At the expense and disadvantage of their neighbors, they made a real cleanup that lasted for years after. Secondly, that man figures that his area "lost" over $15,000,000 in 1955 when the government "slapped" on the controls again. That looks just "terrible for government controls. But we may ask, "who guaranteed those prices he quoted? Was it free enterprise? And, if we look a little closer, what did they make in that year of "freedom", of full production? I am not sure that those figures would show up so favor able. So the government just had to take charge again. However poorly the pro gram has worked ever since, it stopped one of the most disastrous depressions since the 30's. The writer from Carter county puts up the scare of "government wheat V • dumping" to force a favorable vote on the wheat referendum. This would, of course, wreck the whole farm pro gram, as well as the economic situation of all the rest of our business world. This would never be put into action by our government. Too much is de pendent on our economy to risk such drastic measures to "force the farmers into line". It would not only threaten our country's basic industry but would kick" others out of balance, if not cause international repercussions. Crop controls are against Nature is advanced by a Sanders county writer. He intimates that it is un-Christian as well as against Ex-Post Facto law of the Constitution. That, of course, is get ting rather deeply involved in law and theology and a multitude of other ram ifications which would take more space to fill than Montana Farmer-Stockman a 99 << is willing to appropriate for this angle of the subject. Government control is needed, in ag riculture as well as so many other activities of our citizens. The intent of the laws is so often misconstrued. The human element is always to be reckoned with, and it is so often quite frail. But, we can't let things go "hog wild".— Edgar I. Syverud, Sheridan county. Dictatorial Powers I READ WITH considerable interest the wheat and feed grain program in your February 15 issue. I have been in favor of bushel al lotment for wheat for several years and, at least in the case of smaller operators, doing away with acreage controls, so that we could store wheat on the farm and have a reserve to fall back on, against the year or years when it is very dry and we have a crop fail ure such as 1961 was. I certainly am not in favor of the as a whole as it is set up by program the secretary of agriculture, virtually giving him dictorial powers over farm ers of America. Perhaps the secretary should have leeway or freedom in declaring some how much domestic wheat to raise, export wheat, feed wheat, etc. That is all I would be willing to concede him, except his authority to enforce the law. On page 8, your editorial states that wheat could be stored to match up with certificates issued in the future. After reading the article or program four times, I fail to see how this could be accomplished, at least here in Garfield county where 15 bushels per acre or more is considered a bumper crop and only happens about once in ten years. Those tight acreage controls isted in the program don't suggest to me that very many farmers would have much chance of storing wheat against the year of a crop failure. On page 7 the article states: "Mr. Kennedy feels it's time for farmers who want price support to fish or cut bait," with nothing being said about the fact that during the elections we (the farmers) had no vote on acreage control, just price control. How could a farmer with a low wheat acreage vote himself out of price support with out getting more acres?—Forrest Fer ris, Garfield County. Must Have Controls I BELIEVE WE have to have con trols. If a farmer were sick he would go to a doctor and the doctor would diag nose his case before giving medicine. But what made the farmer good and sick is the fact that we lost 18,000,000 head of work horses and took tractors and machinery for a substitute. We ac cepted refrigeration, which saves mil lions of dollars in food. Also the United States and every state in the Union have put out millions of dollars for wildlife in competition with our do mestic animals. All this added up feeds millions of people and some to spare. So I am a firm believer we have to have farm programs, with controls with teeth in them, with pounds and bushels instead of acreage control, with the farmer storing his own stuff and getting his loans through his local banks, with a government support of a full 100 per cent of parity. I have been farming and ranching 50 years in Montana. — C. C. Wilson.