AGRICULTURAL RELIEF

417

delay, would do the very thing that you have indicated—Ilift agriculture
 on a plane with labor, with transportation, with finance, and
with industry; and we think, further, that it does it in harmony w.th
precedents and in accordance with the established policy of the Govarnment
 better than any other legislation proposed.
Mr. KercaaMm. One further question, Mr. Taber, and I think I
am through: Supposing that this bill were passed by the Congress
and approved by the President and were put into effect, and that
following that agriculture did take its place; and then add the
supposition that our population changes will keep on with their
draft towards the cities and naturally, possibly, the need for this
special kind of legislation would gradually disappear—what is the
effect of this particular bill on that kind of a situation?
Mr. Taser. This bill 1s self-eliminating.
Mr. Kercuaay. “Self-eliminating ¥ describes the situation, and
still does not give agriculture a supreme advantage over others; but
simply puts it into the picture, so that we can march down the road
side by side, which is all any farmer asks.
Mr. Taper. That is correct; it does exactly that thing. As we
approach the import basis on any commodity, the export debenture
automatically, without any expense, without any difficulty, eliminates
 itcelf, and the system that is then prevailing for the protection
of other groups will protect agriculture.
Mr. Kercuan. I said that was the last question I had, but here
is one other: You have stated that you preferred the form of organization
 set up in the bill—without a board and without what is
referred to as the revolving fund or the stabilizing features of the
other bill. In the spirit you manifested, which I want to compliment,
 you have said that if it be the judgment of this committee that
these added features, such as board and loan features, ought to be
incorporated, you would be glad to go along and would give that
sort of an arrangement your support, although vou preferred the
provisions of this bill; is that correct?
Mr. TaBer. That is a correct statement. Our attitude would be
simply this: We favor the simple non-salaried, naked proposition
because of the reasons we have indicated. But we realize, as we
have said in the very beginning, the superior judginent of this committee—your
 long experience, your seven-years’ study of a problem—
and 1f in your judgment you felt that a salaried board was necessary,
 1f In your superior judgment you felt a revolving fund was
necessary, or if veu in your superior judgment felt an export corporation
 was necessary, we naturally would acquiesce in your superior
 judgment, believing that your study and your experience brought
you to this conclusion with the good of agriculture in your mind—
naturally we would go most enthusiastically along with the program
 in spite of the fact it was not just what we asked for or just
what we wanted,
Mr. KercHay. You think that is a fair statement; you think that
lescribes your sincere desire to compromise?
Mr. Tarer. We think so.
Mr. Kercuay. If I got your idea of compromise, it is that you
are willing to go along the road, but you do not want to go so far
as to compromise in the way of the two carpets, where the husband