AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
327 
Mr. CoxnaLrLy. The governor says he is going to do that way. So, 
what are you doing to do? Are you going to fool the farmers—are 
you going down home and make that same speech you made all over 
your district last year, painting the picture of the farmer in disaster 
and all that, and say, “ We tried to do something.” Oh, yes; “We 
tried to do something; and the President would not let us do it.” 
You can go down there and make that speech. but you are not fooling 
all of them. 
Mr. AswerLr. Three times. . 
Mr. Former. May I ask you a question, Mr. Connally ? 
Mr. CoNNALLY. You may; yes. 
Mr. FoimEer. In stimulating the price under your proposition, 
would you not naturally stimulte production ? 
Mr. ConNaLry. It would not stimulate production any more than 
it would stimulate it under the McNary-Haugen bill. 
Mr. FouMmer. That is right. Do you have anything in this bill— 
Mr. Jones. I will state to the gentleman that there is a provision 
in both bills here presented for a reduction of these debentures in the 
event there is an increase in production. 
Mr. Coxnarry. There is a clause in both the bills to regulate the 
debenture certificates in amount. If it stimulates production too 
much you lower the debentures. 
Mr. JoNEs. And you may take it off altogether? 
Mr. CoNNaLLy. Yes. That has a tendency to slow it up. When- 
aver a man makes the statement that he wants to raise the price of the 
farmers’ product and tries to avoid the fact that that is going to 
stimulate producion, of course, he is in error. But what are all these 
bills trying to do? Raise the price, are they not? That argument 
that it 1s to raise the price is going to meet every one of you on 
every plan you have got, because if you were not trying to raise 
the farmers’ price you would not be up here in this room to-day. 
What else about the equalization fee? I say it is unconstitutional, 
and I voted against it. We tried to get you to limit the bill to $25 
per bale on cotton, but you would not do it, and gave the board power 
to fix it at any figure it might choose. 
Gentlemen, that equalization fee is beautiful in theory. The gen- 
tleman from South Carolina asked a question there which is splendid, 
because the theory of the equalization fee is that this omniscient all- 
powerful, all-wise board is going to know just exactly when the 
market requires that they pop on the fee so as to reduce production 
and regulate it. That is a beautiful theory. But, gentlemen, it will 
not worl; it is not workable. To tax each bale of cotton from $10 to 
$23, and turn the farmers money over to some one else to spend will 
not relieve the farmer of anything except his money. You tell me 
that the farmer who goes up to sell a bale of cotton or who goes up to 
sell a bushel of wheat—I am not talking about these professional 
farmers, these book farmers. who draw big salaries to agitate and 
propagandize. But I am talking about the fellow who raises wheat 
and corn and cotton. You can not tell me that he favors the equali- 
zation fee. I am talking about the man who does not belong to the 
cooperatives. If he wanted to join the cooperatives he would join 
it. But a great many people in this country do not believe in that: 
R6160—2R-—8ER E. PT 5——2