AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
291 
Mr. KiLcore. It is in the way that the money may be used. 
The way that it would be used, in my judgment, with a straight 
loan is that there would have to be extremely conservative operation, 
buying low in order that you might sell high and not lose any money, 
but to make money according to the section that I just read. There 
would be no such necessity as that under the equalization fee bill, 
because you would have the equalization fee to make good any losses 
that might be sustained from more liberal operations, and by liberal 
operations I would mean this: 
It has been suggested by some who have advocated the loan bills 
that cotton would have been bought last year at 12 cents. That would 
have been of very little value to the man who needed money from his 
cotton most. To have done most good the stabilization should have 
taken place at a much higher price than the low price of 12 cents or 
below. That is the way, I think, they would operate, that the loan 
bill would have to be conservative; they would have to buy very low 
down, and then the benefits would not come as against buying at a 
higher price, nearer the cost of production, and thus extend the bene- 
fits to those farmers who need help most; that is, those who do have 
to sell and get their money. 
Mr. Fort. I was going to come back to that in a moment, Doctor. 
I am trying to get down to the essential difference in principle, first, 
as to the purpose of the loan. As I get it, then, your reason for be- 
lieving that the equalization fee principle is essential is that the board 
should deliberately operate under that principle in contemplation of 
loss, whereas in the loan bill you think they must only operate on a 
basis that offers a reasonable prospect of profit. 
Mr. KiLcore. I think that latter is the meaning as stated in the 
loan bills, that you would buy at such a price that you could resell 
without a loss, and make a profit. 
Mr. Fort. I have no disagreement with you on that. 
Mr. Kingore. All right. 
Mr. Fort. The point as to where we disagree is as to the economic 
soundness of ever going into an operation deliberately to take losses. 
I have not looked at the Crisp bill for some time, but have just now 
secured a copy. In reference to the price at which under the Crisp 
bill it is proposed to purchase, you suggested they would have bought 
at 12 cents. I think perhaps I made that suggestion to you last year 
at the time that the Crisp bill was under discussion and when cotton 
was already down to 12 cents—that if it was then put in operation, of 
course, we would step in and buy—any corporation would. But, 
referring again to the language of the Crisp bill, that language is that 
it shall buy “when prices are below or, except for such purchases, 
may fall below the cost of production to efficient producers.” 
In other words, that bill does not contemplate waiting until they 
are below, necessarily, does it? 
Mr. KiLcore. Well, if you take that section, you might justify 
your interpretation. But if you take the other sections that I referred 
to, I think your interpretation is not just right. 
Mr. Fort. You and I perhaps read the bill differently, and maybe 
if we read it the same we would agree. 
Mr. KiLcore. I doubt whether we could read it with the same 
mind or not; our positions are entirely different. 
Mr. Fort. The limitation on purchase—and the only limitation 
on purchase, as I recall the bill, as to price—is that those purchases