274 AGRICULTURAL RELIEF Mr. FuLmer. Doctor, right there. Is it your understanding that with a normal crop and fair prices there would not be any equaliza- tion fee; that they could operate without it? Mr. KILGORE. Yes. . Mr. FuLmer. And then if there should be a surplus it would bring about the equalization fee, which would bring to the notice of every rower the overproduction, which would tend to stabilize pro- duction? - Mr. KiLcore. Yes, sir. And I want, Mr. Chairman, to get straight with Mr. Clarke. You gentlemen are good judges of human nature. A man in public life must be either a good judge of human nature or a man of unusual parts; he may be both—Congressmen are. Mr. CrLarkE. Or his constituents may be poor judges. Mr. KiLcore. I believe if we take the human nature side of people into considration, other things being equal—I only mention that to illustrate my point—that they want to belong to cooperative asso- ciations and, as Mr. Bledsoe said here the other day, they will belong to cooperatives if you give them equal advantages in price in the cooperatives; because they get the advantage of their own technical employees in grading and stapling their cotton or other crops, so that they will get the advantage of quality in price. Now, there is a very distinct advantage there that a man would have to pull him over into a cooperative, providing the other things are equal, even. And then you have this other big advantage that we hear a great deal about, and that is the combined bargaining power that would go with a group of farmers and which the individual farmer does not have. I think there are those two main advantages if we had this compulsory pooling of the surplus, strictly speaking, compulsory contribution of the equalization fee for use in pooling the surplus or more that would induce the nonmember—he would not be forced— but there would be advantages in getting quality price for quality product and then the bargaining power of volume of product that would carry the nonmember into the cooperative associations. Further than that, gentlemen, public sentiment in this country, I believe, is in favor of cooperative marketing by farmers. There has not been any question, social, economic, or political, that has had the publicity, that has had the support, I think, that cooperative marketing has had in these last five years. Cooperatives are practically a unit for this bill. Congress has passed important legislation in favor of cooperative marketing: The Capper-Volstead Act of 1922, the intermediate credits act of 1923, the cooperative marketing bill in the Department of Agriculture in 1926. The action of Congress has been general for Tooperative marketing. Now, is supported by that public sentinemt. To President has not sent a message to Congress or made an address jn Wars as any appropriateness to refer to agriculture in, except po ade some statement, in favor of cooperative marketing. entiment 1s for cooperative marketing, and with compulsory pooling of surplus, the cooperatives can succeed.’ sal; Us would n% inducement to bring the nonmembers into the rood hime: would not be compulsory, but it would be just real 2 an nature and economic advantage.