AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
279 
January, 1926, after we felt the effect of a surplus crop in our opera- 
tions. The matter was new to us and to our people. Our farmers 
did not know about it, and not only ourselves but our Representatives 
in Congress felt that we should not, without having put the matter 
before our farmers, place the equalization fee on them; and we asked 
for two years’ deferment, so that the matter might be discussed. 
I covered here yesterday the way this matter has been put before 
our farmers in the last two years, so that they might know about it, 
and so they do know about it now. 
We asked for a deferment at that time, for these reasons: We want 
the equalization fee now because our farmers have had an opportun- 
ity, as the farmers of the Mid-West had had at that time, to know 
about this entire proposition. So we came along and put ourselves 
in the same position, the same category with all of those who are ad- 
vocating this legislation. There is a difference in the situation then 
and now as regards the South. 
Mr. Apkins. You heard Mr. Bledsoe’s testimony here, did you 
not, before the committee? 
Mr. KiLcore. Yes. 
Mr. Apkins. And I think it is pretty generally understood by the 
members of the committee, at least, that Mr. Bledsoe is about as 
representative a planter and cooperator as has come before our com- 
mittee. I think if you will look into the record you will find stated 
that he had been opposed to the equalization fee until their actual 
business experience and attempting to carry the surplus had demon- 
strated to them that without such a fee to make the whole crop carry 
the cost of marketing the surplus that they could not operate. That 
was their actual business experience that had converted them from 
Opposing the fee to supporting it and that had led him to change his 
mind. 
Mr. KiLcore. That was so with us; and Mr. Bledsoe and his tes- 
timony came in here after we did, and you did not have the tobacco 
associations here until last year—the Burley and Dark Tobacco Asso- 
ciations, until they had had this experience; and then they came as a 
result of that experience, advocating this measure. It is not the 
theory with us, gentlemen; it is an actual experience representing a 
condition. 
Mr. Kercaam. Doctor Kilgore, will you take your cotton and 
take any equalization fee that you think would be a fair equaliza- 
tion fee and, based upon conditions this last year, just take about 
five minutes, or whatever time might be necessary, to explain exactly 
how you would think it would work out with cotton. 
Mr. KiLcore. It was suggested in the fall of 1926, when it was 
known that we were going to have about 18,000,000 bale cotton crop, 
with an indicated surplus of 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 bales, that the 
3,000,000 to 4,000,000 bales, or as much Of that as was found neces- 
sary, should be taken off of the market. Cotton averaged in 1926 
practically 12 cents per pound. That would mean $60 per bale, 
with 500 pounds to the bale. We had 18,000,000 bales of cotton. 
An equalization fee of $5—I am using round numbers so as to make 
it easy to follow—per bale would have meant $90,000,000; and 
$90,000,000 would have bought outright one and a half million bales 
of cotton at $60 per bale. If it had been desired, 50 per cent of the 
value of that cotton could have been borrowed from the intermediate