AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
343 
ary and $126,000,000 the profit on the 600,000,000 bushels or a total 
of $168,000,000 under the debenture plan, and the $300,000,000 net 
profit under the equalization plan. would be $132,000.000 in favor of 
-he equalization plan. 
Mr. Goss. I want to pursue your course of reasoning to carry to 
the committee just exactly what you propose. Under the plan which 
you have proposed of establishing an equalization fee of 50 cents a 
bushel, the American people would pay 50 cents a bushel on 800.- 
000,000 bushels of wheat, or $400,000,000. 
The CHARMAN. The consumers pay on whatever is consumed ip 
this country? 
Mr. Goss. Yes; that would be $400,000,000. 
The Carman. The increase of 50 cents a bushel on the 600,000,000 
bushels sold for domestic consumption would be only $300,000,000. 
The cost of wheat going into a pound loaf of bread is less than 2 
cents, and the price of bread generally remains stable regardless of 
the fluctuations in the price of wheat. The producers would not 
have to pay, but, on the contrary, they would receive a profit of 3714 
cents a bushel. They are willing to pay freight and expenses of 
marketing and to accept the 50 cents per bushel which, under the 
findings of the Tariff Commission, is justly due them. minus the 1214 
rents cost of equalizing the price. 
Mr. Goss. If the price of wheat is raised 50 cents a bushel somebody 
has to pay $400,000,000. Under our plan, if it was found that the 
difference in the cost of production between home and abroad was 42 
cents a bushel and the export debenture rate would be raised to 42 
cents a bushel, the American public would pay six hundred million 
times 42 cents, or $252,000,000, plus the debenture total of $84,000,000; 
or it would cost $336.000,000, if I have not made a mistake in arith- 
metic, as compared with $400.000.000. In the one case the consuming 
public has paid $400,000,000; in the other case the consumin 
public has paid $252,000,000; the public as taxpayers have paid 
$84,000,000. But the net cost to the public is $64,000,000 less than 
ander the equalization fee, even if you could charge the public 8 cents 
more than the tariff protection. which you couldn’t do. 
Mr. KiNncHELOE. It is your hope that this bill will bring to the 
farmer the world’s price, plus the debenture? 
Mr. Goss. That is the idea. 
Mr. KincaeLoe. Will you not take out of that your freight in 
vetting it to the world’s market when you export it ¢ 
Mr. Goss. That is taken into consideration now, Mr. Kincheloe: 
ve get the world’s price less freight now, do we not? 
Mr. KixcHeLOE. I understood you to say awhile ago in answer to 
my question that the retaliatory tariff of any other country on any 
commodities would not affect the debenture proposition—the price 
the farmer got over here. 
Mr. Goss. It would affect it just as it does under the equilization- 
fee plan or any other plan. 
Mr. KixcuEero. I thought so. I understood you to say it was not. 
Mr. Goss. Oh, it would. The point I was trying to convey was 
that there was no more reason for establishing a retaliatory tariff 
"han there is to-day. because it is not a dumping measure. 
Mr. KincreLok. I agree with you there. 
RG160—28—Q¥R ¥ PT Bu