284 
AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
There are two proposals for handling or controlling this surplus 
production when it occurs. One of them is a simple loan from the 
revolving fund, such as would be in the McNary-Haugen bill without 
the equalization fee; in the Fess-Tincher bill of the Congress before 
ast, in the Crisp-Curtis bill of the last session of Congress, and in 
the Crisp bill of this session—they represent a simple loan from a 
revolving fund. . 
The other suggested plan is the same loan from a revolving fund, 
with an equalization fee levied upon every marketed unit of the com- 
modity, spread over all of the producers in proportion to their pro- 
duction, in order to raise a fund which would guarantee any losses 
and the return of the revolving fund in its entirety. 
Now, those are the two proposals. 
Mr. Former. Doctor, right there may I ask you a question? 
In all of these other bills mentioned by you, there 1s a provision that 
would give the board the right to have this agency collect a commis- 
sion or certain fee so as to create a fund to pay back that loan, the 
only difference being that it would be out of folks who operated 
through this agency, and under the equalization fee it would come 
out of all the producers? 
Mr. Kingore. That is correct. I believe in the equalization fee 
plan for two or three reasons: In the first place, the equalization fee 
means that every producer in a measure buys back his surplus pro- 
duction. If I produce 100 bales of cotton, and there are 10 bales of 
surplus, or 10 per cent, then my equalization fee either buys back 
and holds the surplus, or else it is used to guarantee any losses, 
costs, and charges of the agency which holds 1t for me, and to make 
ood the loan to such agency from the revolving fund. In that way, 
every producer has an interest, if he does not actually own the 
surplus. 
The farmer or the producer is the only man interested in the 
surplus. If he owns the surplus, that surplus of this year is not 
coing to let him go next year and produce another big crop to the 
extent that he can prevent it, to break the price on the crop that he 
produces next year and also of the surplus which he already owns. 
To me that is fundamental. One of the most difficult things in 
connection with farm legislation is the matter of restraint on pro- 
duction or control of production within reasonableness. The equali- 
sy fee does that in a way that the simple loan proposal does not 
reach. 
Right here I think I had better emphasize how strongly I am for 
the equalization fee. From some of the questions you gentlemen 
asked yesterday, I rather get the idea that you think I am a mild- 
mannered man, and that because of this I may not be impressing nor 
that I am as strong for this as I really am. 
Down in my part of the country there is an evangelist, well known 
and highly thought of, named Ham. One day Mr. Ham, with a 
number of his admirers, was standing talking, and another gentleman 
came up who had not inet Mr. Ham; and a friend of both of them 
undertook to introduce this gentleman to Mr. Ham, and he said to 
him, “I want you to meet my friend, the best part of a hog.” This 
gentleman extended his hand and said, “How do you do, Mr. 
Chittlings?”" ’ ! 
The equalization fee is the ““chittlings”’ of this bill.