AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
9283 
Mr. KercHAM. I am not dealing with that side of it, because the 
situation you have given would work identically the same in one 
bill as the other. What I am trying to get at is this: The argument 
our friends hold up thir hands in holy horror about is that the deben- 
ture must be frowned upon because it is a subsidy. I do want to 
call attention to what a subsidy is. 
The CrarrMAN. How many bales of cotton are exported? 
Mr. KiLgore. Eleven million bales of the 1926 crop. 
The CHAIRMAN. A subsidy of $5 a bale? 
Mr. KiLgore. Two cents a pound, or $10 a bale, and on 11,000,000 
bales it would be $110,000,000. 
The CuarrmaN. $110,000,000, and you operated without expense 
to the Treasury and with profit to the producer. Now, then, so 
much is said about the cost to the consumer. We recall the statement 
of the representative of labor—and they are the consumers. Mr. 
Edgar Wallace, representing the American Federation of Labor, 
stated: “What benefit is it, if we can buy meat at 10 cents a pound, 
if we haven’t the 10 cents? The farmers are our customers. When 
they have no money we can not work. Hence I think it in the inter- 
est of all workers. I can not see any hope for improvement except 
the farmer can buy. We are with you.” And they were the first 
to come to the rescue of the farmer in bringing about farm relief. So 
we accepted their word for it. 
Mr. AsweLL. This $400,000,000 is in the Treasury. You have a 
bill carrying $400,000,000. What do you want with that if it is not 
going to cost the treasurer anything? 
The Crairman. It is to be loaned to the board on ample security. 
The Government has been loaning to others. The Government not 
only loaned millions of dollars to the railroads and others, but paid 
$2,000,000,000 out of the Federal Treasury, the cost of Government 
operation. In this case, it is proposed to loan the board $400,000,000 
at 4 per cent interest, on ample security. 
Mr. AsweLL. You say the Government would not be at a penny’s 
expense, and yet you ask for that $400,000,000. 
The CrairMaN. I am using Mr. Ketcham’s own figures. 
Mr. AsweLL. I am quoting your figures as contained in the bill. 
Mr. KiLgore. Mr. Chairman, in what I have stated here, in reply 
to the questions relating to the operations, and particularly in con- 
nection with the debenture bill, I think you gentlemen fully under- 
stand from my statement of yesterday that I am keeping an open 
mind. I would not want what I have said, beyond what the actual 
facts would justify, to’ have the effect of changing the thought I 
expressed to you yesterday. I am advocating the McN ary-Haugen 
bill with the equalization fee. I am not taking a position on the 
debenture bill. 
I stated a bit ago, if I may go back to my story, that the cotton 
cooperative—and also the tobacco cooperatives—suffered a decline 
because of the large surplus of production of cotton in 1925 and 1926, 
and that they are in this decline because of the burden of the surplus 
which they have helped to carry beyond what they should have and 
which the nonmember has profited from, that has brought about this 
grievous situation of the cooperatives, and it is responsible for the 
general agricultural situation. 
R6160-—28~—SER E, PT 4——3