334

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
not need that protection to enable it to compete with the rest of the
world.

Gradually, as our population expanded and went on westward
across the Rocky Mountains and came to the Pacific, our problems be-
gan to increase.

During that time agriculture had thought itself making profits,
but actually had lived by robbing the soil of its fertility ; and we came
to the end of our free land about the time of the World War. We
came to the time when we had exhausted a very large part of the fer-
tility of our soil, complicating the situation about the time of the
World War. And with the war came a change in conditions. The
Government had for many years followed a policy of agricultural
expansion, encouraging production. With the war the encouragement
was redoubled, until at the end of the war we found ourselves produc-
in the greatest crops in the history of the world; and we also
found this, that our standards of living had advanced—roughly, had
doubled. Our cost of production roughly had doubled; and at the
close of the war we found that our markets were gone, because we
were forced to compete with nations where the cost of production
had not been doubled; in fact, it had declined, and our profitable
markets were taken away from us. We found ourselves, roughly
with a surplus of from $1,000,000,000 to $2,000,000,000. of export farm
products which had not been a surplus prior to those conditions. In
other words, the condition was that our raising of the standards of
living had increased our costs so high that we could not reach world
markets; and that is the condition we find to-day. It is a condition
of surplus due to higher costs.

Those higher costs are due to our higher standards of living,
which, in turn, are protected by protective legislation, such as our
immigration laws and the tariff; and the remedy which we seek to
apply is to enable agriculture to meet the difference in cost of pro-
duction between home and abroad, thus enabling it to reach foreign

Now, roughly, that is the picture of our problem—this problem of
surplus. There are three methods of attack. The first method is
thy of cooperation or orderly marketing. We are entirely in sym-
pathy mith [that method, ] infact, the Grange marketing program
TE presented and defended for a number of years at-

empted to attack it in this way. We feel, however, that it is not

entirely adequate, and we have thought that the two methods were

that (Lad closely eough to put into one measure. We have felt
eserve attention as two separat 1t1

they attempted to attack the problem from oe Dt an y be case

wae second method of approach is that of the an fee.

Ye have no quarrel with the equalization fee. We have some mis-

givings as to its operation, whether it can be laid equitably, and
whether it can be laid without evasion or double collection. B t
have no quarrel with the equalization fee at that. We but feel that,

we are approaching it from a more scientific angl dl
sounder method. Qur approach the third way i gw oe bl ave a
meet the difference in cost of production b ho
rest of th production between America and the
§ e world. We feel that if our troubl 1 1 if
this surplus is largely due—to the diff hiss are Trgely Jue kt
that that is the pomp of e difference in cost of production,
point of attack. We hove to enable the farmer to