AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
189 
In this scheme, if it is put in operation, the tobacco, corn, milk, 
and tobacco men, or whoever it might be who wanted to come under 
the operation of this, it does not make anv difference to us as local 
cooperatives whether anybody joins us or not. But we have at- 
tempted something for the benefit of all in that particular commodity, 
and we can not do it ourselves. The 10 per cent of us who are in 
that can not stand all the expense, therefore there must be some way 
found to make the commodity carry the expense. 
Now, suppose we get this set-up—that has been talked of a great 
deal—with the board and a big appropriation and proceed without 
the fee—your are a practical man and know what you are taking 
about—and you men would get in distress in tobacco and go to bar- 
row; we would get in distress with wheat and go to borrow: and we 
do borrow, and the $400,000,000 would all be gone—lost. the ques- 
tion that comes up in the minds of the committee here is whether or 
not with that loss that would necessarily come, with no means of 
replacing it without this fee—the question comes up then at the end 
of the season—the farmers all lose, if it would not take a lot of pump- 
ing up to ever get back and get the matter before Congress with any 
hope of getting it passed. 
Is that about the way vou feel about it? 
Mr. Kenok. I think if you start without the fee you have just 
simply created a delusion and a snare for the American farmer. 
Mr. Apkivs. That does not quite answer the question I would 
like to get at. If you proceed to operate with this loan, the loan 
would be lost, would it not? 
Mr. Kenok. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Apkins. You would lose it. 
Mr. AsweLL. How do you know you would lose it? 
Mr. Apkins. You can not raise the price above where this market 
is and hope to avoid a loss. 
The point I was trying to get at is this and that is your serious 
objection—if there were heavy losses in Burley tobacco and in dark 
tobacco and in wheat, for instance, losing the best portion of the 
appropriation, you would have a fat chance of coming back here and 
getting a bill passed along the line that would sustain it? 
Mr. Kenok. If you pass any bill, without the equalization fee, so 
far as I am concerned, I will not come back here and I will not try to 
operate without it. That is my position. 
Mr. Apxkins. If you do start to operate with the fee, you cooperative 
tobacco fellows will function, and the grain men will function, Mr. 
Clarke and the milkmen will function; and if we can do the market 
any good through this process it does not make any particular differ- 
ence to us whether our neighbor comes in to the organization or stays 
out? 
Mr. Kenoe. Not a bit. 
Mr. Apkins. That is the point I wanted to get at. 
Mr. AsweLL. Let me ask you this question: The reason you are in 
favor of an equalization fee is to distribute the burden over the whole 
of the operation? 
Mr. Keuok. Yes, sir. 
Mr. AsweLL. Any plan that would do that would be all right, if it 
would not interfere with cooperative marketing in any way? 
Mr. KesoE. It would