AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
383 
to go into the bounty business at all on a commodity for which there 
is no actual domestic demand, or so little demand that it does not 
absorb even the present production ? 
Mr. Stewart. I should say that if farmers, or any other producers 
in the country, start into the production of a given line solely for 
foreign markets that there would be less reason why they should be 
granted an export premium. But I do not think you should come to 
‘his point in your thinking where you would say, “ Here, we have 
cotton, of which 56 per cent 1s exported. Here we have wheat, of 
which 24 per cent is exported. Here we have corn, of which 11, 
per cent is exported. Our bounty should be very light upon cotton, 
heavier upon wheat, and heaviest of all upon corn.” I do not think 
your philosophy should necessarily lead to that result. 
Mr. Fort. But your whole plan is based on the analogy of the 
tariff. Now, with most tariff rates for the protection of the domestic 
market those tariff rates reflect no benefit on the exporter; he gets 
no gain. It is only on what he sells in the domestic market that we 
protect him. We would not put a tariff on articles for which there 
was no domestic market. It would be purposeless if we did. Why 
should we put a bounty? 
Mr. Stewart. No, sir. It is my thought that considerable weight 
should be given to this principle which you have mentioned. In my 
opinion, it is not the sole principle that should enter into the picture. 
I have the impression that the export branches of American agricul- 
ture are suffer.ng at the hands of certain Federal policies which 
have been inaugurated not for any particular purpose of making 
them suffer but rather for the specific purpose of helping some other 
branches of our economic life. We have immigration restriction, 
which is not set up for the purpose of putting agriculture at a dis- 
advantage, and yet which has something to do with keep.ng the costs 
up in the case of farmers who have to use machinery made by labor 
kept high in wage scale. Yet there has been no definite intention to 
put agriculture at a disadvantage. 
The same thing is true of a number of other Federal policies. 
There has been no intention to put agriculture at a disadvantage. 
And yet the fact is that as a result of immigration restrictions and 
tariff and noncancellation of foreign debts even, and some other poli- 
cies, all of which have a rational basis from some points of view, our 
sxport branches of agriculture are at a disadvantage. 
Under those circumstances it seems to me that you might justify 
me in using the word “debenture.” I use the word “debenture” 
because it means something due—:t is from a Latin word meaning 
something owed. 
Mr. Fort. I am only using the word “ bounty ” as generic. I think 
the word “ debenture ” is all right in this case. I still want to get 
at the basic principles, Doctor Stewart. I agree largely with the 
statement you have just made, that as a result of the operation of 
things that were not so intended agriculture has in many cases been 
at a d:sadvantage, without question. But, conceding that as a fact, 
Is it still a part of the duty of the Government as a fundamental 
economic principle to foster an industry which is operating at a loss 
in the production of a commodity for which the American people 
have no demand 2