168 
AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
Mr. Cavervo. If they would all chip in. 
Mr. KercaaM. Yes, if they would all chip in. Then follows this 
question: They are conscious of their situation and they know they 
could do it. The very fact is they have not done it. Now, will you 
please answer this question: Supposing we set up a machine that 
compels them to, whether they want to or not, do you think they are 
going to like it? 
Mr. Caverno. I do not think they will ever know. We do pay 
more because of the protective tariff in general, and we do not dis- 
criminate. We do not see there is ‘‘so much tariff and so much tea- 
kettle,” and, Mr. Ketcham, I can not take the time to illustrate that. 
I think you see the picture, so that I can say to you that not only will 
it not be visible, but if it were it would be acceptable, because the 
figures would be so plain. 
Mr. AsweLL. Do you mean to say the farmer would not know he 
was paying the equilization fee? 
“Mr. Caverno. He would know if I would tell him. He ought to 
know. 
Mr. AsweLL. Did you not say he would not know? 
Mr. Caverno. No, I said he would not divide the thing up in 
that way. And when he knows he is getting more for his crop, 
and the equilization fee is less than what he gets in the appreciated 
value of his crop, I can not imagine a farmer would kick about it. 
That is just a question of visualizing a system of machinery for work- 
ing this bill, which I think I have well mn mind which would make it 
perfectly plain to the farmer. The result is he would be getting 27 
cents under present conditions, and he would know the difference 
between 42 and 26 or 25 cents, whatever it was. He would see the 
figures in the newspapers, and he would know what he got and what 
his equalization fee was, and it would be the difference between 
what he got above foreign cost and 42 cents. 
Mr. Apkins. This equalization fee is the fly in the ointment. 
Mr. Caverno. I know it. 
Mr. Apkins. The farmers know this, that when they started the 
cooperatives locally that their competitors bid more than the com- 
modity was worth? 
Mr. CaverNo. Yes. 
Mr. Apgins. In those days we provided a straight penalty that 
where you go and sell to get the extra price you pay the penalty into 
your own company. That was the “fly in the ointment’ in the 
beginning of this. They went out and said, “Take your penalty 
out.” “All right; you go along.” We knew we could not exist 
unless we had thatin. After we had gone along to such a point where 
the farmers became educated to the fact that they were serving their 
own interests—they did not go into the courts, because it made them 
too unpopular with the farmers. 
When we start this scheme of control, the same agencies we are 
competing with will come in and do uncommercial acts as they did 
then, to create losses, and if we have no way of meeting them the 
whole thing will go to pieces; and if the fee is taken out you will have 
to hamden this 1dea of surplus control, in my judgment. 
Ir. Caverno. No; I will not say that. Somebody may suggest 
something else, but so far they have not. May I invite this to your 
attention, all of you? Senator McNary has been very close to the