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