270 AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
Mr. AsweLL. I did not ask you that. 
Mr. KiLcorE. I think it would more nearly meet the needs—more 
nearly work for cotton than anything else. 
Mr. AsweLL. 1 think this is primarily for cotton and you are 
speaking for cotton. 
Mr. Kincore. I am speaking for cotton. I would not want a 
bill that would work for cotton that would not work for these other 
commodities. . 
Mr. AswiLL. I would not; but I do not admit it will not. ' 
Mr. KiLcore. I think we disagree very sharply. 
Mr. AsweLL. Yes, we do, undoubtedly. 
Mr. KiLgorE. I think this bill would more nearly meet the needs of 
cotton, because cotton does not have any tariff; it is largely exported 
I think the conditions with the other main staple corps are quite dif- 
ferent from cotton. 
Mr. Fort. Doctor, is it not a fact that there is a very distinct line 
between the remedy needed for tariff-protected crops and the remedy 
needed for a non-protected commodity? 
Mr. Kimncore. They might find by experience that that was so. 
But I think that an equilization fee is necessary for cotton. 
Mr. KincaeLok. I do not mean by “tariff-protected commodity” 
all those that simply have a tariff; you mean really protected? 
Mr. KiLcorE. I mean when they have a tariff. 
Mr. KincueLoe. The reason I am asking that is, you take tobacco. 
There is a tariff on tobacco, but I will say on dark tobacco it does not 
have any effect at all. Of course, ours is 80 per cent export. 
Mr. KiLgore. Let me finish my thought, Mr. Chairman, about 
cotton. Its presentation here by Dr. Aswell is not the first time we 
have heard this. It has been suggested a number of times through- 
out the year that a bill without the fee would be a good cotton bill 
and that we as cotton people might accept such a bill, that would 
rive us results, and that possibly we should be satisfied with results 
for ourselves. 
Now, I do not think it will work effectively for cotton without the 
equalization fee, in the first place; and I would not want it merely 
for cotton. And that would not be based merely on loyalty or 
patriotism to the group of people with whom I have been associated 
and been working in trying to develop this legislation. It would not 
be based upon loyalty and patriotism to that group of people, but 
it would be based upon economic reasons. 
Any stabilization bill for one commodity that does not stabilize 
and is not effective for other commodities will break down for the one 
that you attempt to apply it to. I do not think you will need to go 
very far to see that is so. And I would be against it for economic 
reasons, and I believe sound economic reasons would indicate that 
it would fail; and I would not want a bill without the equalization 
fee, even if it would work for cotton, because it would not last. 
[ I am wondering, Mr. Chairman—I have gotton off of my story—if 
[ might Just dovelop Woiher phase of this question? Doctor Aswell 
hein, on] para one American Cotton Growers’ Exchange at its 
et y represented a little more than 9 per cent of the cotton 
pro ue ion and cotton membership, and it represents considerably 
ronson To ip now, which I admit; and there is an awfully good 
. » t00—just the reason I am going to impress upon this 
committee when I come to take up my story again.