350

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
The CaAamMAN. I understand you to say that you would be in
favor of any amendments to strengthen the bill

Mr. Goss. Yes; we do not claim the bill is perfect.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this question: Would you be in
favor of minimizing the speculation waste in marketing commodi-
ties, doing away with the speculation, the manipulation of prices,
and doctoring of grades and all those things ¢

Mr. Goss. I would net be able to take snap judgment on the word-
ing and say which is best. We are trying to carry to vour committee
a definite principle.

The Criarman. Are you opposed to it? Would you be in favor
of legislation that might do away with the fraudulent practices re-
ferred to in the Federal Trade Commission report and the press
reports of the dealings on our exchanges through price and grade
manipulation? I have noticed that has been left out of the bill and
I was wondering why it was left out. Most of the farmers think
they are being imposed upon.

Mr. Goss. If, in the judgment of the committee, it will be possible
to curb manipulation by incorporating a feature in that bill to do so,
I see no objection to do it.
in Cram. But the question is whether or not it shall be put
in or left out; that 1s the 1dea. ou sa 1 1
did you leave that out? y vou drafted the bill. Why

Mr. Goss. Because our attitude has been to hit at one evil and not
try to correct everything in this one bill.

The Cuamman. Do you not consider that an evil, speculation?

Mr. Goss. It certainly is; and there are evils of the tariff, evils of
taxation, and evils of transportation which could be——

The Caamrman. If it is an evil, why did you leave it out?

Mr Goss. Because we attempted to reach one evil only.

: 22 (mniss. Only one evil? Would it not be well to take care
of all the evils? [Laughter.] Why did you leave it out?

Mr. Goss. We would like fo take care of them, but we do not feel
competent to remedy all the evils at one stroke.

e Crarman. It can be taken care of; all you would have to do
te put it in the bill. Are vou for it. or against it, that is the
Mr. Goss. If the committee can elimi i i
there would be no objection hatover tin : in % ation,

The Cuamman. Of course, unless we try, it can t be a :

Mr. Goss. There would be ho objection you can do i one:

The Cmamrrman. I will ask you another jon t Wo i
A ; question: Would it pre-
etl geous domestic markets for such commodities, do you

elieve in advantageous markets for domestic products ? Y
. Mr. Goss. Te x the bill accomplishes {hat and as far as the

g goes, Mr. Haugen, I can no -

paragraph here and a section there : and me 4 ay and oat 3

We feel that is within the province of the conmitt . All in the bil.

ing to do is to bring the main principle bef e vo A SNE

have it Jrorded so as to accomplish that ore vou © think we
e Cramrmav. I understa is hi

and I notice a number of hime aim ton Yond 1 a A re

whether that was intentional or trintentional 2 wanted to inquire