148

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
Mr. AsweLL. That would be all right, but what would the President
do? Wo have to face the stern fact that he would not sign 1t, because
his Attornev General advises him it is unconstitutional.

Mr. Stone. The Attorney General advised him that the original
form in which it was in the McNary bill was unconstitutional.

Mr. FuLMmer. If he refuses to sign any bill that the Congress sends

it is his responsibility.
ve Aswers, 1 have ot yielded to the gentleman from South
Carolina. I would like to have your opinion—I would like to have
you answer it in your own way. oo

Mr. Stone. I was trying to answer it in my own way. I believe
you can do that, and from my standpoint that is what I would like
to see done. If, on the other hand, that is done, and it does not
vet by, then I think you have discharged your duties in the premises
Anyway.

Mr AsweLL. It is not a question of the matter of discharging a
duty. It is going back home and saying we didn’t bring anything
again. This is four times. I am talking about the practical question.

Mr. Stone. I am talking about the practical question too, and I
think the equalization fee, or some form of equalization is the most
practical answer to this whole proposition. Furthermore, I believe
it can be so framed that the burden of declining to cooperate with
the Congress will devolve upon the President of the United States.

Mr. AswerLL. Certainly; but he doesn’t care about that. He is
not in a hole. We can’t put him in a hole. He is independent.
He showed it last time and we don’t have two-thirds majority.

Mr. Stone. He showed it last time with reference to the bill
before him at the time. As I understand it, the gentlemen here are
trying to meet that.

Mr. AsweLL. Another question, if we were to frame a bill of that
kind, how would your friend Lowden——

Mr. Stong. I am not bothered with him at all.

Mr. AsweLL. That does concern this committee, because his fol-
lowers are the men who say equalization fee or nothing before this
cominlttee.

Mr. Apkins. Right there, on that very question, I think I get
your idea, Doctor Aswell. We are up against a practical proposition.
The chief thing urged against the equalization fee is its constitu-
tionality. That is the chief argument against it. You see a possi-
bility of this plan working, without a fee, possibly. We people who
have been advocating this type of legislation do not see any possi-
bility of handling commodity that we only export a small percentage
of, without some means, or fee, to meet the losses with. Also we
realize the fact that it is not quite fair to put.up to the President of
the United States something he states is unconstitutional, which he
will not sign because of that. What would you think of this sort of
8 compromise; that we amend this bill, after providing for the
pachinery as suggested here by you people that we put in an extra
clause:

Provided, however, That this board shall not be authorized to start in operation
xcept on one commodity, until the constitutionality of this law is decided.

If it is declared unconstitutional, we have to forget it. If the
President is right, we must forget it. Then, amend your equaliza-