414

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
and it is hardly to be presumed that the importer out of the goodness
of his heart would bother with a little matter of bookkeeping in that
way, that is, bother with these debentures, without charging some
brokerage for the trouble he would be at.

In other words, the figures used in presenting these matters are
misleading so far as the farmer goes on all commodities. as to the
benefit.

Mr. Taser. I will touch that a little later in pointing out the re-
lation of benefits. But it is just as fair to assume that the benefits
would accrue in accordance with the equilization fee or any other
set of figures.

Mr. Apkixs. True, you have all this to contend with, and probably
will have to amend later to meet the faults we find in the bill when
we get to the practical operating of it.

Mr. Taper. No legislation is perfect. The suggestion that we
make simply is that if these fears materialize their correction is a
matter of simple amendment.

Mr. Apkrns. In all probabilities we will have to build up the
machinery to protect ourselves against these various things as they
come up.

Mr. Aswerr. Mr. Taber, how would this do as a compromise—
everybody seems to be anxious about it: Have the debenture plan
limited to cotton at 5 cents a pound ?

Mr. Taper. Why don’t you make it 10 cents a pound?

Mr. AswerL. Well, now, let me ask my question. Let it be at 5
cents a pound on cotton, include tobacco and rice; and then let the
chairman and his associates at the other end of the table arrange
for an equalization fee on corn and things of that kind. How
would that work? That would be a compromise.

Mr. Taser. You will have to suggest that to the chairman,

Mr. AsweLrL. Would not that be a good compromise?

Mr. Taper. Not a very good compromise, I fear.

Mr. AswerL. Why not? Then everybody would be happy. Mr.
Haugen wants to pay a fee and everybody up there wants to pay a
fee, and we do not. How about that?

Mr. Taper. That would not be a very good compromise. A good
compromise would be to try the debenture fee bill in its simplicity
on the 1928 crop, and then if it did not work the next Congress
would have time to get a full equalization fee program tested by the
courts ready for the 1932 crop. That would be a compromise that
would put money in the farmers pocket. solve the problem, and give
us a chance to get ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in the record—I do not care
to read it unless there is a request to read it—a point was raised in
our hearing the other day that our penalty provision was not as
drastic as could be desired. ‘And after going over the matter with
Congressman Ketcham and others, we have suggested an amendment
from pages 10 and 11 and 13, with a very much more drastic penalty
provision and a much fairer penalty provision on all crops. :

You remember that we commenced our reductions with the idea
that there was no reduction unless we had a 20 per cent increase. It
mas evident in the hearing on cotton that that would be a burden on
the Treasury. A little consideration broucht us to the fact that we