30

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
Mr. Jones. We would be helpless, anyway, and the big question
in this is the constitution of the board and the good faith of the
board. The board must have not only what we are talking about
here, but these other facts, and they must act in good faith, or you
would not have anything.

Mr. Gray. A very'large amount, as I agree and as all the conferees
will agree, is the element of good faith in the Federal Farm Board.
If you should get a farm board that is nonagricultural in mind, I
presume no recommendations and no publicity of the advisory coun-
cils could require it to act in the proper method; but we have the belief
that in building up these councils as here suggested to you now, you
are getting a method of impressing upon the Federal Farm Board
the authoritative voice of the producers of 50 per cent of the com-
modity which we have never yet encountered in any bill that has been
thus far introduced.

Mr. Apxkins. In districts where there are surpluses of any commod-
ity produced, in the Corn Belt, the Wheat Belt, the Cotton Belt, and
every other belt, I suppost a board made up in that district, a large
number would be naturally in favor of doing something to relieve
the major commodity of a large surplus.

Mr. Gray. I would think so.

Mr. KercaaM. Just one more question and then I am done.

Going back to section 3, I read the following paragraph, cutting
out all of the intermediate language. Let us just use the words
“when,” “then” and “shall,” for instance, section 7 says when the
advisory council and so forth and so on, and in the first paragraph the
board so and so, and the second, so and so, “when” they find it—now,
what I say is this, that when the advisory council finds a certain
thing, as in A, and the board finds certain things as in the first para-
graph, and certain things as they find it in the second provision,
then jumping to line 4, the language is, “then the board shall arrange
for the marketing of the surplus.” What I am getting at is this.
Is it not the intention of this series of amendments you have suggested
to make these advisory councils practically a determining body as
to whether or not the period shall be set up and the functions of the
board discharged, without submitting their judgment to the final
review and veto of the board itself?

Mr. Gray. No. If you had left off that last clause I could have

answered yes. But the Federal farm board is the functioning body
to put into operation those provisions of the marketing agreement
which begin at line 4 on the top of page 10 of the chairman’s bill;
but it is intended honestly that we will give to the advisory council
an 1nitiatory power which along with the findings of the board will
result in marketing agreements, disregarding that last clause of your
question. But the Federal farm board, if it does not concur in or
obey the recommendations of the advisory councils, can fail to see
that conditions first and second enumerated in these amendments
are binding. ,
. Mr. Kercaam. Then you would not object to putting something
in lines 4 and 5 that would clarify that, and enlarge the definition by
saying “after publicly declaring its findings and the findings of the
advisory council” or some language of that kind?

Mr. Gravy. 1 do not know what language you would put in there,
of course, but I think we could hardly consent to any language that