28

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
Mr. Gray. Taking tobacco, for instance——

Mr. KincaeELoE. All right; let us take tobacco. :

Mr. Gray. Under the old bill the tobacco growers from your
State and district would meet with tobacco growers from Missouri,
my home State. They would meet, under the old method of advisory
councilship, with the tobacco growers of Connecticut, the tobacco
growers of Michigan, and other tobacco growing districts over the
United States. It would be much more difficult for those tobacco
growers, representing one commodity, to come to an agreement,
because their interests are not all identical, than it would be under
the present recommended arrangement for 50 per cent of the councils
representing agriculture in the districts to come to an agreement and
make their findings. In other words, we are after action.

Mr. KincHELOE. Then, under your amendment, if these tobacco
growers did honestly differ, some wheat or cotton men who did not
know a tobacco stalk from a mullen plant, would come in and decide
it. Would that be the effect of your amendment? -

Mr. Gray. I would not agree that that would be the effect of the
amendment.

Mr. PurNELL. Mr. Kincheloe, following your line of argument, let
me ask you how you would get an expression under your plan?

Mr. KiNncaELQE. Under the original bill?

Mr. PurnNeELL. How would you get an expression from the growers
of any given commodity? .

Mr. KincHELOE. You would have some mass meetings of coopera-
tive associations.

Mr. Pur~NeELL. Would you call them together from all over the
country? :

Mr. KincHELOE. No; I'don’t mean to take every farmer to one
place in the United States.

Mr. PurNELL. It is easier to imagine that with tobacco than it
would be with cotton or wheat.

Mr. KincHELOE. They could start with whatever unit they want
to—the county, for instance. They could then send delegates from
there. How is it going to be any more democratic under this amend-
ment here? How is the farmer going to be anv more directly repre-
sented?

Mr. Kercram. I want to ask this question, Mr. Gray, whether or
not in your redraft, provision 3 on page 9 is to be written in the bill,
or in the language in the first paragraph of section 7 is 3 to come out?

Mr. Gray. It was intended, Congressman Ketcham, that number
3 would be dropped absolutely, it having been covered in this initia-
tory paragraph.

Mr. Kercaam. In the bill as originally introduced the point is
made by Mr. Purnell that there is where you get the basis of the
expression of your commodity councils.

Mr. Gray. But that is a finding of the board which rests largely
upon the initiative of the board to secure. In the rearranging of the
paragraph these councils—and referring back to the make-up of
the council, where they are made to be autonomous bodies, not
dependent upon either their chairman or secretary, being appointed
by the board—in rearranging section 7 you get a recommendation
from the councils even if the Federal farm board has not asked for
a, ing.