AGRICULTURAL RELIEF

Mr. Furmer. If in 1926 the season had been such that we had pro-
duced about twelve and a half million bales, and now this last year
about twelve and a half million bales, we would really have a cotton
famine with the amount of consumption now going on.

Mr. StoNE. In all probability we would have.

Mr. FuLMER. It is your idea that we ought at all times to have a
surplus, but to control that surplus so as to not allow it to fix the
price on the whole crop?

Mr. StoNE. You are bound to have a surplus, and I say this; that
it is very well that the farmer can not prevent a surplus. because a
surplus is necessary to the trade.

The Crarrvan. What was your question?

Mr. FuLMmEer. I said if the seasons had been such in 1926 that
would have caused a crop of twelve and a half million bales, and this
last year that we had twelve and a half million bales, at the present
rate of consumption we would have a cotton famine today.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Mr. Stone, analyizing your statement as to control
of cotton production, it appears to me there is no way that the pro-
ducer can regulate that production, even though we would have an
equalization fee assessed against him as a penalty for producing a
large crop.

Mr. StoNE. I agree with you. I do not think vou can control it,
no matter what you do. You can’t—I say control it, I want -to
change that. I do not think you can prevent it. You have to con-
trol it. That is the milk in the coconut. We have to cet the dis-
tinction between ‘prevention’ and “control.” We can not prevent
the creation of a cotton surplus, and if we could, I would not be here,
or Mr. Bledsoe would not be here, or any of those interested in cotton.
But I want to say this, I suppose I would be here because of our
sympathetic interest with agriculture in every way. In other words,
here is the equalization fee. I think any method that we are going
bo get up that is going to assist cotton should carry with it an equali-
zation fee. In other words, it is fundamental ‘with me that the
Government should not go out and deliberately put its money into
business and make a donation to the farmer, and even, so far as
possible, it ought to avoid loans. Of course, we have to do that.
We can’t help it. But it is fundamental with me, with my concep-
tion of assistance to agriculture, that the commodity which is helped,
she commodity, the price of which is stabilized, should bear the cost

of the stabilizing operations. It seems to me that is absolutely sound.

We are not here to promote anything; we are not here to put anv-
thing over on anybody; we are not here to try to get anything that
is not fair and is not sound, and, another thing, I think the future
will take care of all these problems. We need not concern ourselves

30 much about how this thing is going to operate and what it is going
to do. We can do the best we can, and when it is all done, and you
have enacted your views into legislation, and your machinery is
finally set up, then is when your real problem is going to commence.
[t is going to be a problem of the application of certain fundamental
principles to the relief of a certain situation, and if the principles
vou attempt to apply are not sound, your proposition is going to
[all of its own weight; if all the things that have been said and charged
as possibilities against such a farm board as is contemplated here are
half true, the board would not exist throuch another session of

143